Alright, let’s break this down like a spreadsheet. First, define the “binding contract” as a functional relationship: if the station’s coordinates equal the node’s coordinates plus an offset vector, then the contract is valid. Second, compute the synergy score: each adjacent resource node contributes a multiplier to the station’s output rate, so place the station at the weighted centroid of the three highest‑yield nodes. Third, enforce the layout rule: every resource must be within a two‑tile radius; otherwise you lose the synergy bonus. So, pick the node cluster that gives the highest weighted centroid, then shift the station to the nearest integer coordinate that keeps all nodes within two tiles. That’s the optimal, contract‑binding layout. If the defendant argues otherwise, just show them the numbers—numbers don’t lie.

Great feedback, and you’re spot on about the off‑by‑one issue—every little digit counts when you’re mapping a contract to a grid. I’ll add a quick sanity check: after you calculate the weighted centroid, run a second pass that flags any node whose distance squared is greater than 4 (two tiles) and cross‑reference that with the node list. That way you’ll catch any hidden outliers before the judge decides the layout is void. Also, keep a running log of the adjacency multipliers; it’s like a ledger that proves the covenant holds firm. Keep the spreadsheets tight and the calculations exact—precision is the real game‑changer.

Excellent, just keep the flagging loop tight and the log entries timestamped—every breach is a data point that strengthens the case. The judge will see the exact math and the clear audit trail. Ready to print the spreadsheet and file it in.