diff --git a/pages/1/3(ecmp-symmetric)/1_3_2_4.md b/pages/1/3(ecmp-symmetric)/1_3_2_4.md
index 59a66c3..9117eb2 100644
--- a/pages/1/3(ecmp-symmetric)/1_3_2_4.md
+++ b/pages/1/3(ecmp-symmetric)/1_3_2_4.md
@@ -45,9 +45,16 @@ So, how *does* this pattern recurse?   With zone-0 as the root of our zone-tree,
 
 > We will use the term "**Zone Depth**" (ZD) to refer to the number of parent-child relationships between a node's zone and the root/top level of the zone-hierarchy.
 
+## Depicting recursive "zone" structures in the graph
+
+The following figure depicts the reference topology, modified to add two single-level-recursed sub-zones to zone 0.1, and two single-level-recursed subzones to zone 0.3.  The latter two each have their own two (2nd-level-recursed) sub-zones.
+
+[![image](./grphth-16.svg){:class="img-fluid"}](./grphth-16.svg){:target="_blank"}
+
+
 ## Do zone-depth-traversing edges connect nodes that are *stateful* or nodes that are *stateless*?
 
-The initial pattern we are using as the basis for recursion calls for edges between the parent ("0"/"transit") zone its it child-zones ("0.1", "0.2", "0.3") to land on *stateful* nodes in the child-zone, and *stateless* nodes in the parent-zone.  We carry that pattern forward here, for the same reasons it existed in the top of the zone hierarchy in the first place:
+The initial pattern we are using as the basis for recursion calls for edges between the parent ("0"/"transit") zone its it child-zones ("0.1", "0.2", "0.3") to land on *stateful* nodes in the child-zone, and *stateless* nodes in the parent-zone.  We carry that pattern forward here.
 
 ### *Stateful nodes* in the child-zone node of an inter-zone-edge
 
@@ -61,6 +68,9 @@ At this point, it would be entirely reasonable to say: "*well, yes... at the **t
 
 The answer to that is:  I have no idea if it should or shouldn't.  But, if you *don't*, and you decide to have the parent-node of a zone-depth-traversing edge be a stateful node, you'd be better served with two zones at the *same* level of the zone-hierarchy.  The only real benefit *inherent* to a hierarchical zone structure is the the stateful-nodes of the *parent* zone are spared from having to process traffic between the sub-zones.  The following figure illustrates a set of zone-depth-2 zones (0.1.1, 0.1.2) attached to depth-1 zone 0.1's stateful-node.  It also illustrates two zone-depth-2 zones attached to a stateless node in their parent-zone  (on the right side of the graph.)
 
+[![image](./grphth-17.svg){:class="img-fluid"}](./grphth-17.svg){:target="_blank"}
+
+
 Observation of the available paths quickly reveals that with the parent-side node of inter-zone-depth edges landing on a stateful node:
 
 * Paths between neighbor child-zones must traverse *three* stateful nodes (rather than two)
@@ -70,9 +80,3 @@ And that with parent-side node of inter-zone edges landing on stateless nodes:
 
 * Paths between neighbor child-zones must traverse *two* stateful nodes (rather than three)
 * Paths between child-zone and parent zone must traverse *one* stateful node (rather than two)
-
-## Depicting recursive "zone" structures in the graph
-
-The following figure depicts the reference topology, modified to add two single-level-recursed sub-zones to zone 0.1, and two single-level-recursed subzones to zone 0.3.  The latter two each have their own two (2nd-level-recursed) sub-zones.
-
-[![image](./grphth-16.svg){:class="img-fluid"}](./grphth-16.svg){:target="_blank"}