Hello Fraz @Frazer_Mann,
I prefer to stick with my original way of how to look at their contributions, which is essentially that, very differently, both of their rows turn out to be always “No” (I don’t want to repeat my arguments in detail over again).
I prefer that because simply discussing whether they are positive or whether the magnitude is small do not completely reflect my original way, so that would not be how I will make any conclusion.
It is tempting to conclude it with simple concept like “magnitude”, but it is also dangerous to do so, because when you say “magnitude is so low”, then everyone can ask “how low is low?”, so even though “magnitude” is a convenient concept, saying “magnitude is so low” can be inaccurate too. For this discussion, I will just stick to my original way.
The table is for you to inspect the behavior of each unit. The table does not provide for any rule that any good neural network should comply with. Therefore, I will not ask question like “you always need to have one row as XXX and one as XXX?”, because the word “need” implies some necessary condition which is not what the table means to give you.
Again, the table means to let you inspect the behavior of the units.
Then it is your exercise.
Btw1: Sharing the notebook won’t tell everything.
Btw2: There was a link to a file that was from one of the labs of the course, and by the code of conduct, we can’t share that, so I have removed it for you. 
You said previously the following
So, I asked back that if you look at my following plots (not yours),
Following your original logic to conclude that “0” are sought after, now, with my plots, is it still just “0”?
Cheers,
Raymond