And They Fell Into Place...

The problem with orbits needing to be paired before forming ionic bond is that, we have

$H_2Cl_2$

instead of,

$HCl$

which might explain why $HCl$ is more covalent than ionic.

The good news is

$Na$ and $Cl$

can chain up as

$-Na-Cl-Na-Cl-$

where the inner paired orbits of $Na$ and the paired orbits of $Cl$ are linked by sharing an outer rolling electron.  The singular unpaired orbit is literally not in the picture.  It is not part of the ionic bond.



Furthermore, there is no reason why paired orbit orthogonal to the chain cannot link up in an ionic way given no obstruction in the space around the chain,

adding a third chain perpendicular to the plane formed by these two, we have,

This structure then forms into the square lattice that we are familiar with $\small{NaCl}$ where each $Na$ has six other $Cl$ neighbors.  Other paired orbits of the nucleus being able to form similar ionic chains can explain many crystalline structures with specific structural angles that the theory based on transfer of electrons and charged ions cannot account for.  Given that all ionic bonds are between paired orbits space evenly, spherically around a spherical nucleus, the angle at any atom is then just,

$\angle S=\cfrac{180^{o}}{n}$

where $n$ the principal quantum number, is the number of paired orbits around the nucleus.  Since, two consecutive ionic bonds can form skipping one or more paired orbits in between, the structural angle can be an integer multiples of  $\angle S$.

What happened to the the singular unpaired orbit and its electron?   This unpaired orbit could be responsible for the crystal disassociating in water forming an aqueous solution, but is not involved in the ionic bond between the elements.