Laruelle constantly claims scientific status for his non-philosophy but is unable to respect his own criteria or satisfy even the vaguest criteria of scientificity. Conclusion Laruellean non-philosophy is pseudo-science: https://terenceblake.wordpress.com/2016/09/19/non-philosophy-as-pseudo-science/. However, non-Laruellean non-philosophy can overcome that defect: https://terenceblake.wordpress.com/2012/10/01/on-non-laruellian-non-philosophy/
Contrary to his claims, there is no “scientific posture” in Laruelle, and all his pretentions to scientificity are so much propaganda, a self-cloning gone wrong. Just as Laruelle cannot define his way out of metaphysics he cannot define his way into science.
As to democratic or charitable reading there is none to be found in Laruelle’s response to Deleuze and Guattari’s WHAT IS PHILOSOPHY? in his “I the Philosopher am Lying” nor is the principle of charity exercised towards Badiou in his ANTI-BADIOU.
Laruelle’s clones of Deleuze and Badiou are conceptual characters within his own solipsist self-fiction, or self-cloning, and not the products of an immanent reading.
In practice Laruelle’s concept of “in the last instance” amounts to the admission: “I the non-philosopher am lying”. Laruelle is lying about pluralism and democracy because it all comes down to his one view.
Laruelle himself comes close to recognising this when he writes:
“Do I practice terror? There are obviously two readings of my text. There is a philosophical reading, one in which I do practice terror. And there is a non-philosophical reading, which is obviously my reading” (here).
Conclusion: Laruelle is someone with a few interesting Deleuzian ideas, a lot of sophistic self-description, and a cranky obscurantist style.