Behavioral observation
Approve one concept
Change it in plain English
Compliance check
What the rebuild exposed
- 01The canonical breaks the Master Poster Template
The template locks “distribute the four step regions evenly from top to bottom”. On Canonical #001 the four bands measure 371 / 408 / 318 / 280 px — a 46% spread. The rebuild distributes them evenly, because the template outranks the canonical in your own authority order.
- 02Two objects are not in the Official Object Library
Step 2 uses a shopping cart and step 4 uses a walking cane. Neither exists in the library, and Prompt C fails a poster that uses unapproved objects. The rebuild substitutes approved assets — this is the QA layer doing its job rather than a stylistic choice.
- 03Caption placement is inconsistent
Caption left edges land at 69.3% / 69.2% / 67.2% / 66.2% of canvas width. Invisible on one poster, visible as a wobble across a feed of hundreds. The renderer places every caption on the same locked column.
- 04Two governing documents disagree about the arrow
Prompt B requires “the official solid black downward arrow”. The Official WHOOPS Arrow Sheet draws arrow 1 as an outline. Both cannot be satisfied. The rebuild fills the official silhouette — same shape, solid — so it honours the sheet and Prompt B at once, but this is a call you should make rather than one a generator should keep guessing at.
Every asset below was traced from your own sheets with an edge-tracing pass — not redrawn, in line with the DO NOT RECREATE rule on each library page. Each one is now scalable vector with its own file, which is what makes deterministic assembly possible.