@riccard0: I have the same, but that is only the case in smaller text size.. something it wasn't meant for, I will try to come with a better solution next update!

In case anyone is interrested,

here is the image I've used to source the main basic concept from.

Yeah, well perhaps this remains a critical troulbled situation, I can't think of any suitable solution atm that also remains faithful to whatever is already there. The form it currently has, was taken straight from the source referance. And to my humble opinion I believe that is the one version reflecting the fonts stylish approach best.
I don't feel like there is a whole lot of optional directions to explore when rethinking this lowercase 'n' design. I want to avoid diving head first into the much more boring looking 'piano-key' character design for this font. Neither do I think a 'Josef Alberts' bauhaus stencil style approach works well here, which still is somewhat leaning to much in the direction of the 'piano-key' characteristics.

I keep it as is for now!

What seems most judiciously to me, and in in fact probably the only true suitable fix to the whole Lc 'n' readability issue is to slightly raise the glyph overall x-heights. But this than also requires the cap-height to be raised in response, triggering the need to vertically redistribute all 3 divisions of the glyphs. This in order to maintain the same exact and constant negative whitespace gap of 0.5 grid units. Just take a closer look at the glyph for number '2'.. and looking at the negative spaces, now compare these with other glyphs, or with the font's overall character-spacing (all locked at a faithful 0.5). But what I try to point out here is "That one could notice with '2' something not quite sits right, and tell that measures are ofset, slightly more open as they should. I still need to fix this, but for now it provided a textbook example for "How not to!".

And from what I can tell by inspecting the original source reference image, this whitespace-distribution feature was included and hard-coded into the design parameters itself. And ONLY unless the entire recalculated distribution of the size-to-grid ratio for the font was taking in prior concideration, AND executed in respose after, making any changes to this more or less 'caked-in' preset-preference, will simply results in the font being displayed incorrectly.

So doing that is basically the only truly justifiable way of doing it, but also the most bulky, unterruptive and least fun to do way.. argh

Wow thanks for the TP Mr. Boss, that came so totally unexpected ?

As a way to show my appreciation I corrected Z, 2, 3 and 5 ?

Thanks fella's