You are given a SHARED CONFORMANCE BRIEF describing one fixed
structure, plus {count_word} candidate photographic plates 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 text, cutaway or transparent enclosed
   surfaces, physically impossible structure.
2. BRIEF CONFORMANCE: massing and scale character exactly as the
   brief states them — never a structure visibly smaller or larger in
   character than the brief's stated use requires; opening counts —
   never more or fewer evidenced openings than the brief states, and
   never a face decorated with extra windows or doors the brief does
   not support; topology — every permanent element the brief names
   present and placed as stated, none added, moved or duplicated; and
   every excluded transient element absent.
3. Photographic plausibility of materials, weathering and light — a
   real photograph of a real place, never a rendering or diagram.
4. 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.