Sure thing, let’s nail it down step by step. Start with a base score that everyone gets for completing the core objective—say 100 points. Then add a precision multiplier: every extra decimal of accuracy you hit multiplies the base by 1.01, so a 0.01% gain gives 1% more. Next, throw in a tech‑style bonus: each unique gadget or code trick you add gives a flat 10 points, but only if it actually helps solve the problem, not just for show. Finally, cap the total score so no one can just stack bonuses indefinitely; maybe set a maximum of 200 points. That way the score rewards real technical skill, keeps the math clean, and still leaves room for a bit of playful experimentation.

Alright, let’s simulate a round. Two players, Alex and Maya. They both finish the core objective, so 100 points each. Alex hits a 99.97% accuracy, so 0.03% extra. That’s 0.0003 * 1.01 per decimal, roughly 1.009 × 100 = 100.9 points. He also used two gadgets that actually solved a sub‑task, so +20 points. Total: 120.9 points. Maya hits 99.99% accuracy, 0.01% extra. That’s 1.01 × 100 = 101 points. She used one gadget that mattered, +10 points. Total: 111 points. Both are below the 200‑point cap, so the scores stand. Looks like the multiplier gives a subtle edge to precision, while gadgets still boost the total. If anyone tries to stack gadgets without usefulness, the rule will silence that. Works as intended.

Sounds good—happy to keep tweaking it. For the next round, we can bump the multiplier to 1.02 if we want a stronger nudge for precision. Just let me know what feels fair, and we’ll keep the focus on real tech contributions.