← Review & Edit — Substitution StructureDesign VariantsSKILL 4 · 3 variants

Three explorations of how to apply the brief. The structure is settled (Tab, reframed to the customer's decision); these differ in how the “can't be swapped” items and the count are surfaced. All are interactive — tap the tabs/chips.

Flat list + sticky summary
Variant 1 · ↻ regenerated
What changed

No tabs or chips — one flat list with an inline Replace/Keep toggle per item, and a sticky summary that updates live. (First pass drifted back into the rejected Filter pattern; regenerated after gate feedback.)

Trade-off

No category jump — finding one item in a long order means scrolling the whole list.

Two tabs + inline can't-swap
Variant 2
What changed

Only the two real choices as tabs (Replace / Don't replace); can't-swap items move to a quiet inline section.

Trade-off

Can't-swap items less prominent — a fast scanner might miss them.

Summary-first
Variant 3
What changed

Leads with a plain-language summary (6 replace · 2 keep · 2 can't swap); tabs become lighter filter chips.

Trade-off

Summary eats vertical space — more scrolling to edit one item.

For the decision gate: Variant 2 is the cleanest application of the brief (only the customer's two real choices as tabs), with Variant 3's summary as a candidate to graft on for first-time comprehension. Variant 1 is the safe baseline. — Human picks the direction, then: "Refine design: 2 — keep the two-tab decision model, but borrow Variant 3's plain-language summary."