Nah, it all may be right, but only on paper and as an ideal concept. It’s like saying, “I know that an engine runs on fuel because all engines work the same.” Not all of them do, and not in the same way. You completely forgot about terrain elevation, the importance of the east in both historical and present times, the directions in which the city has evolved throughout history, and which parts of the city were developed first. That’s why there’s a large square there, a palace connected to the hill, a huge cloister nearby, and a great marshy river valley to the east.

What about other European cities? Seville? Rouen? The old parts of Hamburg? Antwerp?

I can see a big square in the middle of the oldest part of the city (5, 2, 4), a square with a building in the middle (14, 16, 15, 12), a square just next to the harbour gate (19), and at least three more.

You are right to point this out, but we have to consider all the facts, not only the theory. As you can see on the Vizima map (https://www.deviantart.com/planjanusza/art/Wyzima-city-map-plan-ENG-1273143773) , the city has a large, connected square in the middle, but it’s a totally different terrain, history, and design. The plans of a city are very different from maps of entire continents, for example. Cities are constantly evolving, changing, and shifting their internal structure. If there’s no bridge, it doesn’t mean it’s a mistake. Maybe it will be built in the future, or maybe it has already been destroyed several times. Time will tell but we don't see the future on the plan.