Okay.
Sorry for all the trouble caused.
Itās not a problem itās just more efficient to communicate if thereās a developer who can communicate directly what his/her problem is, rather than having to filter everything through me and this website. That person (or you) can feel free to email Q-Chem support also. Either they donāt quite understand the nature of the bug or else your experience is different from theirs somehow.
Steven, can you clarify exactly what it is that you believe to be incorrect?
The coupling vector does indeed include values for the point charges as these are entirely analogous to the nuclear charges. The couplings with the nuclear charges are listed first (i.e. the first 12 lines in your example) and if you are not interested in the point charge couplings you can simply ignore the last 48 lines.
What āminor errorsā are supposed to be left? Were you expecting larger couplings for the point charges? One thing I noticed is that your point charges appear to have the geometry of surrounding benzene molecules, except that they are exploded. The positions of the point charges are read in in angstroms. If you converted these to bohr before adding them to the $external_charges section in the input, then this would give rise to the expanded geometry of the charges that I observe. This would also cause the charges to be much further away from the $molecule, which in turn would give rise to much smaller couplings with the charges.
I see. Thank you for the explanations.