diff --git a/src/fenigma/solver.py b/src/fenigma/solver.py
index 5ac64f0..46c9180 100644
--- a/src/fenigma/solver.py
+++ b/src/fenigma/solver.py
@@ -182,15 +182,28 @@ def point_to_coord(point: Point) -> Coord | None:
     col = min(max(col, 0.0), 19.999)
     row = min(max(row, 0.0), 9.999)
 
-    x_idx = int(col)
-    x = round((col - x_idx) * 10)
-    if x > 9:
-        x, x_idx = 0, min(x_idx + 1, 19)
+    # A real, reproducible bug lived here: Coord.as_fraction() centers a
+    # sub-cell at x + 0.5 (so a marker drawn at its own coord's exact
+    # pixel position round-trips back to the same coord), which means
+    # the value being rounded here is supposed to land EXACTLY on a .5
+    # boundary, the single worst case for floating point, tiny
+    # representation error from the col/row math upstream (pixel <->
+    # km conversions, zoom/pan, or even just this function's own
+    # subtraction) can tip it to either side of round()'s tie-breaking
+    # rule and silently return a coord one sub-cell off from the one
+    # that was actually clicked (verified directly: reproduced with
+    # zero pixel math involved at all, just Coord(...).as_fraction()
+    # fed straight back into this function). Subtracting the 0.5 offset
+    # BEFORE rounding recovers a value that's supposed to be an exact
+    # integer instead of an exact half-integer, round() is robust to
+    # tiny float noise around a true integer, just not around X.5.
+    n_col = round(col * 10 - 0.5)
+    x_idx, x = divmod(n_col, 10)
+    x_idx = min(max(x_idx, 0), 19)
 
-    Y = int(row) + 1
-    y = round((row - (Y - 1)) * 10)
-    if y > 9:
-        y, Y = 0, min(Y + 1, 10)
+    n_row = round(row * 10 - 0.5)
+    y_idx, y = divmod(n_row, 10)
+    Y = min(max(y_idx, 0), 9) + 1
 
     return Coord(X=LARGE_X[x_idx], Y=Y, x=x, y=y)
 
diff --git a/tests/test_solver.py b/tests/test_solver.py
index bcbc5e9..4c3eab3 100644
--- a/tests/test_solver.py
+++ b/tests/test_solver.py
@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
 """Regression coverage for solver.py's geometric resolution."""
 from fenigma import solver
-from fenigma.models import Board, Clue, Coord, Location, TargetType
+from fenigma.models import LARGE_X, Board, Clue, Coord, Location, TargetType
 
 
 def _board_with_spotters(*coords):
@@ -104,3 +104,24 @@ def test_manual_coord_override_clears_a_stale_note():
     assert target.location.note is not None
     target.coord = Coord("A", 1, 0, 0)
     assert target.location.note is None
+
+
+def test_point_to_coord_round_trips_every_sub_cell():
+    """A real, reproducible bug: Coord.as_fraction() centers a sub-cell
+    at x + 0.5 (so a marker drawn at its own coord's exact pixel
+    position round-trips back to the same coord on click), which put
+    point_to_coord()'s own rounding exactly on a .5 boundary, the worst
+    case for floating point. A tiny representation error from the
+    subtraction it used to do could tip round() to either side,
+    silently returning a coord one sub-cell off from the one actually
+    clicked, this reproduced with zero pixel math involved at all, just
+    feeding as_fraction() straight back into point_to_coord(). Checked
+    exhaustively, not just a couple of samples, since the failure was
+    itself pattern-dependent (only some coords tripped the float
+    rounding the wrong way)."""
+    for X in LARGE_X:
+        for Y in range(1, 11):
+            for x in range(10):
+                for y in range(10):
+                    c = Coord(X, Y, x, y)
+                    assert solver.point_to_coord(c.as_fraction()) == c