If you’re expecting a FC meta and prefer 3GFI to 3TFP, that means you expect FC >55% of time according to @jpr math, so let’s say 60% of the time. This makes the accesses needed to be a weighted sum of the two cases.

Case 1 is no FC, then accesses mean is 23.2 for TGGG2222. Case 2 is FC, then access mean is 20.8. So this means in 60% FC world, access mean of TGGG2222 is 22.24, so up to rounding error the same as GG222 2222 which you quoted as 22 accesses. So again, I just don’t buy that it’s “universally better” even using access mean math. So to me the only benefit is you free up 1 deck slot, but it costs 1 more influence and the agendas do less when you score them. I can see arguments for TTTG2222 as being a great meta call when there’s no FC with its 25.3 accesses and it’s 1 influence saved, but more and more I’m getting convinced GGGT is the wrong call since even in the best case scenario (as little FC as makes it better than TTTG, since more FC = lower access mean, but lower than a certain point and TTTG is better so GGGT is used and has best access mean right at 55% FC) it’s still somewhat lack luster given the three influence spend and half of agendas not creating tempo when scored.

I’m trying but failing to get the script to work, I’d be interested in running TTGG2222 since I couldn’t find numbers on the spread. Maybe it’s the compromise win? Would be nice to get a confirmation on 22 accesses for GG222 2222 as well.