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, Verified as plateless mint, and icon facts for price, timeline and visits. What differs is where the design photos sit relative to the argument — and in 1d, whether facts are named by an inline label instead of an icon.
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.
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.
The attached reference, in our system. Inline bold labels — Intro, Cost estimate — name each fact where it sits instead of spending an icon on it, which reads faster when the values are dissimilar. The status tag leads the card as a chip, and the photo strip runs the full width beneath the dossier and bleeds off the right edge, so more designs are visible than any other layout here. Two departures from the reference: the CTA is outlined rather than filled, because a list of six submissions would otherwise be six competing buttons; and archive is a quiet glyph beside it rather than a second control of equal weight. Weakness: the labels add a second bold voice to a card that already bolds the name and the numerals.
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.