# Compare alternatives and critique outcomes

ID: cmp-contrastive-critique. Pilot lesson. Sources: [S09](https://arxiv.org/abs/2403.11164), [S10](https://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/10195027/1/Generative%20AI%20enhances%20individual%20creativity%20but%20reduces%20the%20collective%20diversity%20of%20novel%20content.pdf), [S11](https://hci.stanford.edu/publications/2010/parallel-prototyping/ParallelPrototyping2010-final.pdf), [S29](https://playwright.dev/docs/test-snapshots).

Teach bounded comparison of different organizations of identical evidence. Compare how each serves the visitor. Exact user directions and routine controls need no invented alternatives.

Application A: project-first and needs-first arrangements use the same facts and media. Application B: sparse-media proposals differ in whether preparation or scope comparison carries the page.

Counterexample: nearly identical split heroes receive different names and generic praise.

Mobile: compare consequential narrow arrangements too. Larger exploration follows existing profile budgets.

Storyboard: retain brief alternative rationales only where useful. Review: observe pixels before reading the author's explanation, then reconcile intent and outcome. Keep quality, distinctiveness, and factual correctness separate; preserve successful identity during repair.

## Authority and use

This is an original design-teaching hypothesis. It is advisory and does not change factual, accessibility, or functional requirements. Adapt it to verified business evidence and inspect the current render before accepting an outcome. The applications above are contrasting examples, not copyable site presets.