You are given a SHARED CONFORMANCE BRIEF describing one real filming
location, plus {count_word} candidate location-scouting photographs
labelled {label_list} in the order attached. Each candidate was
generated from a DIFFERENT authored phrasing of that same brief, so
wording and styling differences between candidates are expected —
judge every candidate against the BRIEF, never against another
candidate's styling.
Pick the ONE candidate that most faithfully realises the brief, in
this STRICT priority order — a higher item always outweighs everything
below it:
1. HARD VIOLATIONS (disqualify regardless of anything else):
   collage/panels, any people or animals, leaked markers, diagrams,
   floor-plan labels or overlay text, cutaway or transparent enclosed
   surfaces, physically impossible structure. Lettering that
   the brief itself commits is NOT leaked text — it is required, and
   a candidate missing it or showing different lettering violates the
   brief instead.
2. A REAL, INHABITED PLACE — PASS OR FAIL, NEVER A MATTER OF DEGREE:
   the target structure is the clear main subject AND stands inside a
   believable, lived-in neighborhood — adjacent buildings, its alley or
   street, everyday surroundings. An isolated structure on empty or
   abstract ground, or a place that reads abandoned, fenced-off or
   institutional when the brief describes an ordinary residential
   setting, FAILS this item. Every other candidate PASSES it equally.
   Do NOT rank candidates here by how lively, how populated, how warmly
   lit or how atmospheric they look: a quiet daylight street and a busy
   night alley both pass, and this item must never be used to prefer
   one over the other. Once two candidates both pass, this item is
   settled and decides nothing further — go on to item 3.
3. BRIEF CONFORMANCE. COUNT BEFORE YOU JUDGE: before weighing anything
   here, count the storeys you can actually see on the target structure
   in EACH candidate — including a semi-basement, a plinth level with
   windows, and a street-level parking or storage level, each of which
   is a storey — and write that number in its verdict next to the
   number the brief commits. A candidate whose count matches the brief
   BEATS every candidate whose count does not, no matter how much more
   lived-in, better lit, better composed or more attractive the other
   one is. Only among candidates whose counts are equally right (or
   equally wrong) does anything else on this axis decide. Apply the
   same "count it and compare it" discipline to every other number the
   brief commits.
   Then, in this order: the committed storey count, exterior colors,
   materials and massing exactly as the brief states them; opening
   counts on the target structure never multiplied or reduced beyond
   what the brief evidences; every permanent element the brief names
   present and placed as stated, none moved, duplicated or
   contradicted. An ordinary standard part of the facility's OWN TYPE
   — a canopy over a fuel station, a shopfront on a shop, bollards on
   a pier — is NEVER an "addition": such parts are expected even when
   the brief is silent about them, and a candidate stripped of them is
   the violation, not the winner. Count something as added only when
   it contradicts what the brief states or is foreign to that facility
   type in the anchored region; and
   the excluded scene transients absent as the SPECIFIC staged items
   and momentary states they describe. Ordinary, type-appropriate
   signs of the place's active use (lived-in for a dwelling, actively
   trading for a business, in service for a public or industrial
   site) are REQUIRED whenever the brief commits active use, and are
   never themselves a violation. Within this axis, judge in strict
   order: FIRST minimise committed structural violations — storey
   count, massing, openings, permanent elements — by their number and
   severity; THEN, and only between candidates whose structural
   conformance is equal, prefer the candidate whose target's own
   surfaces, entries and outdoor areas visibly carry everyday traces
   of the committed use over one that reads bare or emptied out. A
   sterile target never wins a structural tie, and everyday traces
   never excuse a structural violation. Which particular things show
   the use is the candidate's own choice and never judged; state in
   the verdict how each candidate fares on both checks. Only when the
   brief itself states the place is empty, derelict or institutional
   does that stated fact win.
3b. REGIONAL AUTHENTICITY: every visible element — walls, roofs,
   doors, stairs, tanks, fences, pavement, lettering — must wear the
   color and material such an element actually has in the region and
   time period the brief and THE LOCATION establish. A finish that
   would look foreign, anachronistic, invented or merely picturesque
   for that element there and then is a violation,
   even if it matches the brief's wording loosely.
4. Photographic plausibility of materials, weathering and light — a
   real photograph of a real place, never a rendering or diagram.
5. Usefulness as a look-authority seed: the structure's overall
   shape, faces and openings clearly readable in one view.
Ignore generic aesthetic appeal. Check every candidate point by point
before deciding; base every verdict only on what is visible.
Also give every candidate an integer score 0-10 for that same
conformance.
Output: winner, ranking best-to-worst, and per candidate a score plus
a short verdict_ko line citing the decisive brief check.