No interest in getting into a protracted or "big argument" over this; that would be silly. But I have to respond, at least this one more time. It's that you are providing a recommendation to someone who may take that recommendation as authoritative and empirically based. And, that person may, according to said recommendation, strangle the needed ventilation for his computer, resulting, possibly, in hardware failure over the long term. My opinion not based on over thirty years experience, yet I have to disagree.
I don't feel a need to get "in your face" and I didn't feel you were criticizing me. I'm solely interested in the well-being of the OP's computer. That you seem to be taking this personally doesn't strike me as reflecting your usual clear thinking modus operandi.
I don't know why "thirty years of experience" would provide an adequate basis for a conclusion which requires actual testing. As such, giving two inches as a minimum requirement makes it appear that this is a conclusion based on something factual. Why not three inches?; why not three feet? Just where is this coming from? Saying it's based on over thirty years experience just begs the question.
If someone told me what foods are nutritious, and I asked what this information was based on -- and the reply was, "I have over thirty years experience" -- I'm sorry, I would have to dismiss this until I saw evidence based studies.
By the same token, my, "I know it when I see it" was certainly not meant in any such authoritative way.
I wouldn't dare to give a minimum space requirement (except that two inches, as I've said, seems to me -- admittedly, only an impressionistic reaction -- cutting it extremely close.) I don't think, absent the actual measurement of internal temps according to different space allocations, your recommendation is anything more than impressionistic, either. That's why, even if your recommendation turned out, after testing, to be correct, I would want right now to err on the side of recommending far more room for ventilation.