The current shipped version sits at the top for comparison. Same data across all 5 (Training Consistency, 100% avg WC, 5/5, weight ×4) — only the visual treatment differs. Each variant is shown for a "5/5" green case AND a "1/5" red case so you can see how it handles bad scores too.
Pros: most magazine-y, the number is the hero. Cons: requires parsing the raw text into a "big number + unit" shape (parseable for "100% avg WC" and "0 this month" but ugly for "8.5 msgs/wk avg").
Pros: smallest visual change, links raw value to score color so they read as one unit. Cons: red raw values look like errors. Color-blind accessibility is okay since the score number itself is also colored.
Pros: clear hierarchy — eye lands on the raw value first, label is context. Weight + ladder are merged into one inline metadata row to save vertical space. Cons: title shrinks small enough that scanning a column of 4 tiles requires reading the raw values, not the labels.
Pros: score and raw value are an inseparable visual unit, both colored — eye reads them as one fact ("scored 5/5 because they hit 100%"). Title is unambiguous (the only top-line text). Cons: tile is taller; the score badge is bigger so the column feels heavier.
B (Colorized Raw) is the safest pick — minimal visual
change, fixes the "two same-weight headlines competing" problem with a
color shift instead of a hierarchy rewrite, and works for every raw-value
format the scoring functions can produce.
C (Quiet Label, Loud Headline) is the bigger statement
— clearly answers "what's the spotlight?" because there's only one bold
headline per tile. Tradeoff is the title becomes a tiny label, which
changes how a coach scans the four tiles top-to-bottom.
D is the most dramatic but also the heaviest. A
is sleek but only works cleanly when the raw value parses into a single
big number, which "8.5 msgs/wk avg" does not.