One point of confusion here--airlines are provided with more performance charts than are provided to business jet operators. The airlines have performance engineering departments that have all the "raw" charts--Vmcg, accelerate-stop, accelerate-go, brake energy limits, OEI climb gradients etc.
The AFM data provided business jet operators is "dumbed down" to presuppose every operation is a field length-limited take-off, that is only balanced field data only. We do not have all the charts to optimize performance because no operator wants to pay for it, to get trained in using them and to be legally responsible for any misuse. So, unless an operator uses a runway analysis provider, a lot of take-offs are done without all the facts, but the performance available is usually so much greater than the limiting case, it is not an issue.
To our fanatic poster, here's a suggestion. Go into the tab data, select the highest weight that the conditions will allow for take-off. IF the V1 for that weight is equal to or greater than Vr for your actual weight, your V1 can equal your Vr for the actual TOGW. You have "unbalanced" your field lengths i.e your actual accel-stop distance, based on the V1, will exceed your actual accel-go distance but both will be less than the TODA.
As to landing after rotate, you and the plane are much safer in the sky than trying to be a test pilot and landing again.
Call it the assumed weight method, but my heirs would appreciate if you don't reference me at the inquiry, if you overrun. BTW, I am pretty authoritative on the cost of providing performance engineering data prohibiting the provision thereof.