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. In-world signage 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: 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, is a violation.
3. BRIEF CONFORMANCE: 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 added, moved or duplicated; 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, signage — 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.