Apparently I owe whoever was implicated in this communication an apology!
In that statement I objected to not having assistance in the form of someone quoting the calculations to do NAB scoring so that I could quickly mock something up.
Apparently I was VASTLY mistaken in my assumption that this could be a trivial effort, and Marcus' suggestion that I take some time out to get familiar with the NAB module, was totally an appropriate one! So I'm sorry for my mistaken reaction.
I had no idea how elaborate the scoring mechanism within NAB was! I did finally take some time to review it as I'm now mocking up the infrastructure so I can run NAB totally within Java (not with all bells and whistles, but enough to do the scoring); so that I can run iterative tasks from a very rudimentary swarming mechanism to see if I can optimize the configurations.
So again my apologies...
However... <-- (Ok watch out )
Why didn't any body respond by telling me how way off base my assumption of simplicity was? Instead of silently getting offended? I meant nothing personal by my complaint, I just wanted to spur on whatever action would get me to the finish line fastest - that's all. So somebody could have said, "Hey David, it is soooooooo not as simple as that. The scoring of NAB is vastly complex!"
I wish we could have communicated more completely and directly... ...and I hope we can do this in the future.