If you are not sure about the dealer’s calculations or software calculations, you can always fall back on old reliable… MATH. As @max_g stated: “Math doesn’t lie.”. Thanks to @mllcb42 recognizing that the MF = .00295 and not .00285, we have a much better understanding of what happened… So, here we go…
Consider your zero-drive off dealer data… Some states (e.g., CA) will cap both taxable and non-taxable fees when computing the base payment. Tax is levied on the resulting base payment and so, tax is levied on tax… 
Other states, like Ohio, will separate the taxables and non-taxables to avoid tax on tax. 
The formula for the zero drive-off base payment is…
where:
P = base payment
Lease Payment = P(1 + ҭ)
S = sell price = 65295
D = cap reduction = 7500
K = all fees capped = 869 + 925 = 1794
T = tax on cap reduction @9% = 675 EDIT: T instead of G
R = Residual Value 37786.35
N = term 36
F = money factor = .00295, not .00285
Ҭ = sales tax rate = 9%
Plugging in the above values to our formula, gives…
Contractual Payment = 945.29 x 1.09
= 1030.36
Always vet the dealer’s data. A problem such as the dealer’s misallocation is usually a symptom of a bigger problem (likely inputs). And, as @mllcb42 determined, it was a higher MF. So, this should serve as proof of what the dealer actually did. They said they were covering the upfront fees. In fact, those upfront fees were capped in the lease at a higher MF than disclosed. As I mentioned, the allocation of the 7500 resulted in a sum that was 175 less which is why I suggested that you ask the dealer to cut you a check for 175. Now you have supporting proof. If you want to request a refund from the dealer, you have nothing to lose. If they refuse, it’s probably not worth pursuing at this point as it’s a done deal.