Evaluation of deliberate, context-specific craftsmanship versus automated or generic AI template assembly patterns.
Higher % = more human design involvement
| ID | Criterion | Weight | Intensity | Contribution |
|---|---|---|---|---|
A1 |
Interchangeable identity | 12% | 25/100 | 3% |
A2 |
Formulaic hero | 10% | 50/100 | 5% |
A3 |
Repetitive page composition | 10% | 25/100 | 3% |
A4 |
Indiscriminate cards & containers | 8% | 50/100 | 4% |
A5 |
Formulaic typography | 8% | 0/100 | 0% |
A6 |
Decorative styling without purpose | 7% | 0/100 | 0% |
A7 |
Generic or interchangeable visuals | 10% | 25/100 | 3% |
A8 |
Weak product or subject grounding | 8% | 0/100 | 0% |
A9 |
Vague, formulaic copy | 10% | 25/100 | 3% |
A10 |
Placeholder-like credibility | 7% | 0/100 | 0% |
A11 |
Mechanically applied components | 5% | 25/100 | 1% |
A12 |
Unresolved assembly artifacts | 5% | 0/100 | 0% |
Tightly tracked Geist display type paired with structured mono command tokens creates a confident, custom editorial hierarchy.
Near-black high contrast styling avoids arbitrary multi-color gradient washes or decorative AI glassmorphism.