I am completely persuaded that Vertex-Antivertex contacts only exist mundanely. (It's true of every other "defined by a great circle" angle - why not this?) I'm uncomfortable with displaying Vertex and letting it be implied that the contact is ecliptical: It should be measured in azimuth and, of course, azimuth is already given on the report. (Most of the time, I scan the azimuth column on my first look at a chart.)
Second, I'm quite ambivalent about whether Vx contacts act in any ordinary sense like angularity in the "foreground" sense. (My evolving opinion is complicated and doesn't need to be detailed here but, in brief: It's completely clear they do not act "angular" in ingresses, I'm almost as sure that they are worthless in solunars, but I strongly suspect they are valid in nativities at least when there isn't much other angularity. But I don't want to ask you to code different kinds of charts to behave differently in this regard, especially on a fickle and changing landscape.)
With these two considerations, I now think:
- If the user turns on Vertex, then a Vx or Av should be in the G column if the planet's azimuth is within Minor Angle orb of 90° or 270°.
- This should not affect the strength score.
- Calculate all the other angularity, ground, and strength details. Then, if Vertex is enabled...
- If a planet not already marked as an angle has azimuth within Minor Angle orb of 90/270, add the Vx or Av marker, overwriting a b but not overwriting an angle.
This scenario presumes that the Vertex axis matters enough to an individual user that they have gone to turn it on. (It leads to the next obvious question of whether Np and Sp get added similarly, using ecliptic longitude.)
