Compare the two patterns
The model relates binding-head pitch to a sufficiently rigid, periodic target and applies a strain cost as mismatch accumulates. Under those assumptions, a longer array can reach the same effective engagement limit as a shorter one. That gives a concrete reason to compare spacing and rigidity alongside head count.
Geometry is an established part of multivalent design
Experimental DNA-origami studies already vary ligand number, affinity, spacing and rigidity to investigate multivalent recognition. BioTwin’s narrower contribution is an explicit register-and-strain model that can be considered alongside tether conformations and interface geometry. The aim is to decide which arrangement to build and compare, rather than assume valency alone predicts the outcome.
Use an entropy model when the target is flexible
The rigid periodic model is unsuitable for flexible apo(a) repeats, whose spacing depends on conformational entropy. Those targets require a different treatment of linkers and target motion. The current capability is a constrained computational model. A predicted geometric advantage still needs a test of simultaneous engagement, affinity and the intended functional response.