Point to ponder: The new evaluation metrics do capture meaningful differences between the building form alternatives, especially because they show that the best-looking or largest form is not automatically the strongest option. The envelope efficiency index helps compare how much floor area each alternative produces relative to its exterior surface area. This matters because a more efficient envelope can reduce façade quantity, heat gain exposure, and construction complexity per square foot of floor area. The construction cost metric adds a second decision layer by connecting the geometry to the assignment’s cost assumption that higher floor area becomes more expensive. In my results, this was useful because some options had better envelope efficiency but either missed the required floor area range or exceeded it. For example, S06 had the highest envelope efficiency index, but it exceeded the 3,000,000 SF target. S03 had the lowest cost, but it did not provide enough floor area. The more useful comparison is between alternatives that satisfy the development range, such as S01 and S05. These metrics are useful for a first recommendation, but they still leave important gaps. Other useful metrics would include annual solar insolation on the envelope, cost per square foot of qualifying floor area, a pass/fail check for the 2.5M–3.0M SF target, floor plate regularity, structural complexity, view potential.