Request Evaluation of This Stone with Good Proportions but Sub-optimal Images

[Old_Fossil]

In expanding my knowledge on associating MRB proportions on paper to computer images, I came across this 3.3 F color VVS2 stone that seems to have decent proportions as per the GIA cert, but the stills and motion from the 360 video appears to show some undesirable features. Is this a potential example of what I understand as "paddling"? HCA score of 0.9. Would like opinions on why the stone looks the way it does in the images. Some leakage at the 3 oclock in the IS image? Thanks. Link to JA stone is here and IS scope and frontal images below.

 

[lovedogs]

Definitely paddling and some other weirdness. The IS looks good, but the pics don't

 

[Karl_K]

What are all he numbers from the report?
There are a lot of combos that get hca .9
IS image is showing unwanted pavilion deviation around the 3 oclock arrow.

 

[Old_Fossil]

What are all he numbers from the report?
There are a lot of combos that get hca .9
IS image is showing unwanted pavilion deviation around the 3 oclock arrow.

Thanks @lovedogs and @Karl_K here are the numbers from the cert:

Table 57/CA 35/PA 40.6/Lowers 75/Depth 61.5/Stars 50/CH 15/PH 42.5/G MST 3.5

These numbers fall within the member-recommended proportions -but I am beginning to recognize that there are optimal relationships between these variables. As X goes up, Y needs to come down; as A gets longer, B needs to be shorter etc. Very interesting.

Meeting the given proportion parameters, does this stone qualify as SIC by cut alone? Knowing there are rounding errors, it seems that just by these numbers it would technically qualify. However, when viewing the stone from a computer screen, it certainly doesn't show as super ideal. I would imagine it probably looks nice in person, though perhaps not a stunner.

 

[Karl_K]

The pavilion deviation kicks it out of the sic category.
That is why proof beyond numbers is required.
Post the heart image please.

 

[Old_Fossil]

The pavilion deviation kicks it out of the sic category.
That is why proof beyond numbers is required.
Post the heart image please.

Thanks @Karl_K for the feedback. Alas, this particular JA vendor only provided the arrows IS image. No hearts.

 

[Karl_K]

There are vendors out there who have hijacked the term super ideal diamond.
Since there is no industry level standard there is nothing that can be done about it.
However the accepted definition here is that to be accepted as super-ideal there must be documentation proving it.
This includes:
Top grade on grading report for cut/pol/sym
Proportions in the ideal cut range.
No excessive painting/digging/facet deviations.
Advanced images including but not limited to:
Heart image
IS or ASET image.
Optional: arrows image if IS/ASET image is provided.

When a vendor claims a stone is super-ideal the response should be: prove it.