# SM-CAMPAIGNS-01 R2 — Visual Direction Comparison

Shared skeleton: D1–D21 architecture, one dataset, one interaction engine.  
Differences are **structural and presentational**, not color-only reskins.

---

## Y1 · Signal Console

| Axis | Treatment |
|------|-----------|
| Hierarchy | Dark chrome → content → persistent right diagnostic rail |
| Typography | IBM Plex Sans only (fixes serif/sans clash) |
| Navigation | Horizontal secondary tabs under chrome |
| Density | Medium-high; ops-oriented |
| Sequence | Sticky spine + editor cards |
| Status/diagnostics | Signature right rail (primary actions live here) |
| Space | Rail always on; main scrolls |
| Data viz | Segmented progress bar + attributed funnel |
| Advanced | Section + inspector for step rules |
| Mobile | Rail stacks below; brand rail hides |

**Advantages:** Strongest ops transparency; clearest Start disable reasons; closest to Muse’s “status rail as signature.”  
**Weaknesses:** Feels more “console” than “atelier”; writing surface competes with chrome weight.  
**Beginners:** Excellent on Pending readiness.  
**Experts:** Excellent on Active diagnostics.  
**Nav complexity:** Low — predictable tabs.  
**Interaction completion:** Shared engine — full.  
**Feasibility:** High — maps cleanly to existing shell + rail.  
**Responsive:** Good with stacked rail.  
**Feature preservation:** Full shared set.  
**vs Muse:** Directly answers V-05/V-08/V-12 rail guidance.

---

## Y2 · Sequence Atelier

| Axis | Treatment |
|------|-----------|
| Hierarchy | Question-led canvas; campaign name as display type |
| Typography | Fraunces display + Source Sans 3 |
| Navigation | Quiet vertical side index |
| Density | Low in editor, medium in index |
| Sequence | Large editor (18rem body); spine collapsible |
| Status/diagnostics | Absorbed into side index below nav |
| Space | Editor gets majority of viewport |
| Data viz | Same engine charts on Home |
| Advanced | Side index entry; step rules in inspector |
| Mobile | Index wraps to horizontal chip row |

**Advantages:** Best sustained authoring; strongest answer to Muse’s letterbox-editor critique; brand presence without badge noise.  
**Weaknesses:** Ops diagnostics less dominant than Y1; display font must stay restrained to avoid identity drift.  
**Beginners:** Warm and readable; readiness still clickable.  
**Experts:** Fast step switching + large body field.  
**Nav complexity:** Very low.  
**Interaction completion:** Full.  
**Feasibility:** High — side nav already familiar.  
**Responsive:** Editor remains usable; spine stacks.  
**Feature preservation:** Full.  
**vs Muse:** Best V-01/V-06/V-11 authoring execution.

---

## Y3 · Continuum Ledger

| Axis | Treatment |
|------|-----------|
| Hierarchy | Document/ledger rules; sections as bands |
| Typography | IBM Plex Sans + Mono metrics |
| Navigation | Underline tab strip |
| Density | Highest |
| Sequence | Mono body field; hairline spine |
| Status/diagnostics | Narrow ledger rail |
| Space | Minimal card chrome — rows carry structure |
| Data viz | Squared funnel bars; tabular numbers |
| Advanced | Tab entry; readonly blocks clearly non-forms |
| Mobile | Header stacks; tabs scroll |

**Advantages:** Best Continuum adjacency and scan speed; least “generic SaaS card kit”; strongest metric honesty via mono/tabular treatment.  
**Weaknesses:** Can feel austere for beginners; less emotional premium than Y2.  
**Beginners:** Clear but colder.  
**Experts:** Excellent density and scan.  
**Nav complexity:** Low.  
**Interaction completion:** Full.  
**Feasibility:** High — aligns with Continuum refinement language.  
**Responsive:** Dense but workable.  
**Feature preservation:** Full.  
**vs Muse:** Strongest anti-generic (V-08) without abandoning brand blue/Plex.

---

## Scorecard (relative, not absolute winner)

| Criterion | Y1 | Y2 | Y3 |
|-----------|----|----|----|
| Beginner setup clarity | A | A− | B+ |
| Sequence authoring | B+ | A | B |
| Active diagnostics | A | B+ | A− |
| Visual distinctiveness | B+ | A | A |
| Continuum fit | B | B | A |
| Implementation risk | Low | Low | Low |

Preferred recommendation: see `RECOMMENDATIONS.md`.