There is a very strong argument from reason which states that; if the properties and qualifications of armaments of a sufficient variety of other space craft is established, the close approximations of the falcons quad guns can be determined by relative similarities and differences in design, construction, size, etc.
What generally renders this sort of comparative determination by process of identification of visible and indexed features (i.e. they are seen in operation and responsive function, such as four barrels mounted from an over-hanging swiveling yoke, firing repeatedly by cycling pairs - top and bottom - while fire triggering is continuously depressed, or in a single burst of two shots when a precisely targeted single shot is made with observably greater power (and a different sound resonating in through the hull of the ship, which is more akin to a rapid double "spitting" sound).
The explanation for the observed initial upward/downward assent/descent toward accessing the turrets is simple: they are dog-leg routs to bypass having to also open the inner airlock seals in order to access the symmetrical vertical corridors presumably used for docking, which if opened for the sake of gaining access, coupled with the opening of the armored shielding and airlock seals of the exterior would unnecessarily compromise the entire hull and atmospheric entegrity of the ship should one of the turret/windows sustain a direct hit, blowing the whole ship (as presumably such a hit would cause to the turret positions where they are usually identified as being located).
Where any attempts at such a comparative evaluation break down is in the inability of the supporting technical information of the falcon to account for the situation of the quad guns in the positions where they are pointed toward as being located - the top (at the level of the communication array, but recessed, and though apparently facing with window facing directly upward at a 90 degree angle from the horizontal planes of the ship which its internal gravitational field generators are calibrated to distribute across to facilitate walking, rolling and falling down, shows a gravitational symmetry of the vertical axis within the firing cabin - in other words, gravity and the centrifugal force effect of the seating control and turret swivel are consistent with a center of gravity effect below the seat, not behind it which in the case of the top quad gun would otherwise have its operator pulled toward the back of the chair, and the operator of the oppositely directed hull gun falling forward if not heavily strapped in.
So there is a large portion of engineering specification missing which describes the additional gravitational field generators which have.. 441
to feed into the cabins, the mechanical and power requirements of which will have a great baring on the way by which the quad guns are powered, coordinated and calibrated.
With the quad guns placed in the positions attested to, the properties of their function can not be determined without further supplemental explanation of how the surrounding physical mechanics are designed and implemented.
That is the quandry. The argument from reason strongly suggests that the location of the quad guns is merely misidentified as being top/bottom - situated, and oppositely vertically facing, with diagonally angled forward adjusted turrets [which does not correspond with the interior view perspective]. And can be quite easily explained and accounted for if situated at the port and starboard hatches with the blast shield and docking seal doors opened, with the turrets dropping down from overhead stowage, and the firing seats being unfolded from below as their design suggests in two - dimentional side view cutaways. 537