Procedure for Router Proximity Seating
Once router proximity seating prevents one awkward moment, it must remain in force for the rest of the routine.
Suppose the video call had not dropped. Suppose the connection had held for the full forty minutes, and no one had needed to reconnect, and the meeting had ended without the host saying your name twice in the tone that means your audio has gone out again.
The seating arrangement would not have changed. The armchair near the window, which is further from the router by approximately four meters and separated from it by one interior wall, would remain the primary work seat. This would be fine. The connection from that seat is adequate on most days.
The connection dropped on a Tuesday afternoon in what has since been identified as a period of unusual network load in the building. Neither the chair nor the window caused this. The call dropped once.
What Happened After
A second seat was identified and designated for calls requiring a stable connection. The second seat is the kitchen table, which is closer to the router by approximately four meters and separated from it by no interior walls. The kitchen table is adjacent to the refrigerator compressor and receives delivery notifications more audibly than the armchair.
Router proximity seating now means: calls happen at the kitchen table. The armchair is for non-call work and content consumption. This division has not been formally stated, but it has been in consistent operation for approximately seven months.
The Counterfactual
The connection is stable from the kitchen table. The connection was also stable from the armchair, on most days, including the days surrounding the Tuesday incident. The incident was infrastructure-level, building-wide, and would have affected the kitchen table equally.
This information has been available since the incident. It was available when the seating change was made.
The Acceptance
The kitchen table seat is not uncomfortable. The refrigerator compressor is audible on calls but has not been mentioned by anyone on the other end. The migration was unnecessary and produces no measurable cost.
Resignation here is not distress. It is the recognition that the procedure solved a problem the procedure could not have caused and cannot prevent, and that this is fine, and that most procedures are like this, and that the call has not dropped since.