IGI report LG766699670

2.06 ct Square Cushion Laboratory-Grown Diamond

88/100 · Refined

A strong candidate on paper; confirm its light pattern in imagery.

What reads well

Thick to very thick girdle: a thick girdle carries hidden weight and can reduce face-up size (thicker points are common in fancy shapes).
Screening only: for this cushion, check images or video of the exact stone for the facet pattern (bold, chunky flashes or finer "crushed ice") and any dark areas under the table.

Table · Ideal: At 61%, the table sits within the typical 56–66% range for a cushion, balancing brightness with fire.
Total depth · Closer look: 69.6% is deeper than typical for a cushion (61–69%). Extra depth holds weight below the girdle, so the stone can face up smaller than its carat weight suggests.
Length-to-width · Ideal: A 1.03:1 outline is within the classic 1–1.35:1 range for a cushion.
Polish · Ideal: Excellent polish is the top finish grade — facets are cleanly executed with nothing that would soften sparkle.
Symmetry · Ideal: Excellent symmetry is the top finish grade — facets are cleanly executed with nothing that would soften sparkle.
Girdle · Closer look: Thick to very thick (faceted): a thick girdle carries weight in the rim, so the stone can face up a little smaller for its carat weight. It is durable, though.
Culet · Ideal: Pointed: no visible culet facet when viewed face-up.
Color · Ideal: D is in the colorless range and faces up white in any metal.
Clarity · Favorable: VS1 is typically eye-clean.
Fluorescence · Ideal: None: no meaningful effect on appearance.

With 69.6% depth, does this stone face up smaller than a typical 2.06 ct square cushion?
Does this cushion produce broad, chunky flashes or small needle-like crushed-ice sparkle?
Is extra carat weight trapped in the thick girdle rim where it does not add finger presence?
Can you show me the inscribed report number under a loupe before it is set?