All four raise the type to the recommended card's scale — 16px body, 20px name, 14px badges — and reuse its badge and label vocabulary: Top Pro on a warm-tint pill with the filled checkCircle glyph, and — in 1a–1c — Verified as plateless mint plus icon facts for price, timeline and visits. What differs is where the design photos sit relative to the argument — and in 1d, which drops Verified and the icons entirely, naming each fact with a bold label inline at the head of its own line.
Shown at 840px — the real right column at 1180 max-width minus the 340px brief rail. A submission differs from a recommendation in one way that drives all four: the PRO has already produced work for your rooms, so the photos are the proposal, not a portfolio.
Built-in oak joinery in both rooms, plus a bench seat under the living-room window. Slightly over your mid budget, but it removes the need for freestanding storage later.
The requested split, on 2a's mosaic. Same right-hand block as the recommendation card — a large frame beside two stacked halves carrying the overflow count — so a PRO occupies the same silhouette in both tabs and the text column never reflows around varying photo counts. Reading order is credentials → numbers → note → action, with the designs held at a glance throughout. The three facts stack as single lines and the note clamps at three, so the dossier holds ~354px and never reflows around the mosaic. Weakness: the mosaic is fixed at three visible frames, so a submission with nine designs shows the same shape as one with four.
Built-in oak joinery in both rooms, plus a bench seat under the living-room window. Slightly over your mid budget, but it removes the need for freestanding storage later.
The recommendation card's shape, with the price promoted. Same three bands as 2e, so the two tabs feel like one product; the quote moves to the header at 22px because on a submission it is the fact being compared. A full-width scroller shows four designs at 248px, and the count line names what they are. Weakness: the tallest layout here at ~490px, so barely one submission fits the fold.
Photos first, terms in a rail. A full-bleed 200px band opens the card — the strongest read of "this PRO drew your rooms" — and the commercial terms collect in a tinted 200px rail so price, timeline, visits and design count are comparable at a fixed position down the list. Weakness: the photo band commits before you know who made it, so scanning by PRO means reading past an image every time; and the rail's tint is the only plate in an otherwise containerless list.
Intro Built-in oak joinery in both rooms, plus a bench seat under the living-room window. Slightly over your mid budget, but it removes the need for freestanding storage later and keeps the floor you asked to keep.
Facts are labelled, not iconed. Intro, Cost estimate and Service each open their own line as a --fw-bold label followed by the value, so a fact names itself without spending a glyph or an extra line of height. The price stays at body size on purpose — it is an early estimate, not a quote, so it should not read as the loudest number on the card. The CTA is a filled ink pill matching the recommendation card, so "Read proposal" is the same shape in both tabs; archive stays a quiet outlined circle beside it. Weakness: without icons the fact rows rely entirely on reading order, so a scanning homeowner has no shape to land on — and 1d drops the Verified badge to keep the header to two rows, which the other three carry.
My pick: 1a — the split you asked for is also the most scannable, because the text column keeps a constant width and the photo block a constant silhouette, so eight submissions read as a table rather than eight different shapes. Take 1c if the designs should sell before the designer does; 1b only if matching the Recommended tab's rhythm matters more than fitting more than one card on screen. 1d is the closest to the reference you attached and shows the most designs, at the cost of a second bold voice in the type.