Thank you, @wpb, for your questions and @Jordan_xx for summarizing!
Regarding the impact of clustering: The primary goal of clustering is to use this information in subnet allocation, ensuring each cluster appears only once in a given subnet. Concerning the node limit, my personal view is as follows: A slight breach of the 42-node limit, say up to 50 nodes, is not a major issue due to the availability of reserve nodes. However, this will eventually need to be addressed. If a cluster significantly exceeds the 42 limit (which I hope is not the case), it becomes more urgent to restructure the node ownership to maintain fairness, especially given that other node providers have sold excess nodes to meet the target.
Regarding question 5 on financing: While a lender does not legally own the nodes, the independence of a node provider is clearly reduced if they receive financing from other providers. Potentially we could make this rule more specific. For example, the special case of an existing node provider selling nodes to a new node provider, using bridge financing lasting for 6-12 months seems less of a concern, compared to a situation where a node provider is dependent on long-term debt from another provider.