IGI report LG772674182

2.01 ct Square Cushion Laboratory-Grown Diamond

88/100 · Refined

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

What reads well

The table 68% sits outside the typical cushion range.
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.
Treatment status is not stated on the report. For a laboratory-grown diamond, ask whether it is as-grown or post-growth treated.

Table · Closer look: A 68% table is larger than typical for a cushion (56–66%). Large tables can read bright but flatter, with less fire and contrast.
Total depth · Closer look: 69.9% 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 1.02:1 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 · Ideal: Medium to slightly thick (faceted): a durable girdle thickness that doesn't hide meaningful weight.
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 · Ideal: VVS1: inclusions, if any, are only visible under magnification.
Fluorescence · Ideal: None: no meaningful effect on appearance.

With 69.9% depth, does this stone face up smaller than a typical 2.01 ct square cushion?
Does the large table look bright but flat, with less colored fire than you expected?
Does this cushion produce broad, chunky flashes or small needle-like crushed-ice sparkle?
Can you show me the inscribed report number under a loupe before it is set?