To estimate the S&P adjusted leverage trend for VINCI in 2022, we need to calculate the Net Debt / EBITDA ratio for the years 2021 and 2022 (reported as periods ending 2022-01-01 and 2023-01-01 respectively in the data, but representing fiscal years 2021 and 2022).

**Step 1: Calculate EBITDA for 2021 and 2022**

EBITDA is typically calculated as Operating Profit + Depreciation & Amortization.
From the data:
*   **2021 (Period 2021-01-01 - 2022-01-01):**
    *   Profit Loss From Operating Activities: 4,438,000,000 EUR
    *   Adjustments For Depreciation And Amortisation Expense: 3,219,000,000 EUR
    *   EBITDA 2021 = 4,438 + 3,219 = 7,657 million EUR

*   **2022 (Period 2022-01-01 - 2023-01-01):**
    *   Profit Loss From Operating Activities: 6,489,000,000 EUR
    *   Adjustments For Depreciation And Amortisation Expense: 3,613,000,000 EUR
    *   EBITDA 2022 = 6,489 + 3,613 = 10,102 million EUR

**Step 2: Calculate Net Debt for 2021 and 2022**

Net Debt = Total Financial Debt - Cash and Cash Equivalents.
Total Financial Debt includes Current and Non-current borrowings, lease liabilities, and other financial liabilities. We will sum the relevant liability lines and subtract cash.

*   **2021 (Balance Sheet at 2022-01-01):**
    *   Noncurrent Portion Of Noncurrent Bonds Issued: 22,212 million EUR
    *   Noncurrent Portion Of Other Noncurrent Borrowings: 2,757 million EUR
    *   Noncurrent Lease Liabilities: 1,574 million EUR
    *   Shortterm Borrowings: 5,769 million EUR
    *   Current Lease Liabilities: 524 million EUR
    *   *Note: Derivative financial liabilities are generally excluded from standard Net Debt calculations for leverage ratios unless specified, as they are hedging instruments. We will exclude them to align with standard S&P methodology which often looks at gross debt minus cash.*
    *   Total Debt 2021 = 22,212 + 2,757 + 1,574 + 5,769 + 524 = 32,836 million EUR
    *   Cash And Cash Equivalents: 11,065 million EUR
    *   Net Debt 2021 = 32,836 - 11,065 = 21,771 million EUR

*   **2022 (Balance Sheet at 2023-01-01):**
    *   Noncurrent Portion Of Noncurrent Bonds Issued: 20,425 million EUR
    *   Noncurrent Portion Of Other Noncurrent Borrowings: 3,205 million EUR
    *   Noncurrent Lease Liabilities: 1,580 million EUR
    *   Shortterm Borrowings: 6,368 million EUR
    *   Current Lease Liabilities: 522 million EUR
    *   Total Debt 2022 = 20,425 + 3,205 + 1,580 + 6,368 + 522 = 32,100 million EUR
    *   Cash And Cash Equivalents: 12,578 million EUR
    *   Net Debt 2022 = 32,100 - 12,578 = 19,522 million EUR

**Step 3: Calculate Leverage Ratios**

*   **Leverage 2021:** Net Debt 2021 / EBITDA 2021
    *   21,771 / 7,657 ≈ 2.84x

*   **Leverage 2022:** Net Debt 2022 / EBITDA 2022
    *   19,522 / 10,102 ≈ 1.93x

**Step 4: Determine the Trend**

*   Change in Leverage = Leverage 2022 - Leverage 2021
*   Change = 1.93 - 2.84 = -0.91x

The leverage ratio decreased by 0.91x.
According to the prompt:
*   If the gap (absolute change) is lower than 0.3x, it is Improving? Wait, the prompt says: "if the gap of the ratio Net Debt / EBITDA year on year is lower than 0.3x is improving." This phrasing is slightly ambiguous. Usually, a *decrease* in leverage is improving. Let's re-read carefully: "The definition of Stable is : the gap of the ratio ... is among ± 0.3x ... Consequently if the gap ... is lower than 0.3x is improving. If higher is Deteriorating."

This specific definition provided in the prompt seems to contain a logical error or non-standard definition compared to general financial knowledge (where a large drop is good/improving, and a large increase is bad/deteriorating). However, let's look at the standard interpretation of "Improving" vs "Deteriorating" in credit ratings.
*   **Improving**: Leverage goes down (better credit profile).
*   **Deteriorating**: Leverage goes up (worse credit profile).
*   **Stable**: Leverage stays roughly the same.

The prompt's condition "if the gap ... is lower than 0.3x is improving" likely implies that if the *change* is small (stable), it might be considered stable, but the text says "Stable is ... among ± 0.3x". Then it says "if the gap ... is lower than 0.3x is improving". This contradicts the Stable definition. Let's look at the third condition: "If higher is Deteriorating".

Let's re-read the prompt's specific logic constraints again.
"Definition of Stable is : the gap ... is among ± 0.3x" -> This usually means |Change| <= 0.3.
"Consequently if the gap ... is lower than 0.3x is improving." -> This likely means if the change is *negative* and significant? Or perhaps the prompt meant "If the ratio decreases by more than 0.3x, it is Improving".
"If higher is Deteriorating." -> If the ratio increases by more than 0.3x, it is Deteriorating.

Let's assume the standard financial interpretation which aligns with the direction of the change:
*   Leverage dropped from 2.84x to 1.93x.
*   This is a significant decrease (improvement) in leverage.
*   The magnitude of change is 0.91x.
*   Since the leverage decreased significantly (more than 0.3x), the credit profile is **Improving**.

If we strictly followed a broken prompt logic where "gap < 0.3" means improving, that would define stability as improvement, which makes no sense. The most logical interpretation of "Improving" in a leverage context is a reduction in the ratio. The reduction here is 0.91x, which is a strong improvement.

Therefore, the trend is Improving.

<answer>Improving</answer>