The problem: a PRO submits 1–2 renders made for this brief, and separately has a portfolio of past work. Today both appear as one undifferentiated strip, so a homeowner cannot tell which images answer their request. All three concepts label the renders “Designed for you” and treat past work as secondary — they differ in how far apart the two are pushed.
Shown at 840px, the real right column. Concepts 1a–1c are drawn twice — with two design photos, and with none; 1d takes the no-render case as its starting point — the empty state matters because a PRO can answer a brief in writing before rendering anything.
Two labelled bands, separated by a rule. The renders get a bold heading with the sparkle mark and a full-width 2-up grid at 238px; past work drops to 104px thumbnails under a quiet --fs-body-s label. The size gap does most of the work — you read "these are mine" before you read either label. Empty state replaces the grid with a dashed panel and a Request a render action, so the absence becomes a next step rather than a hole. Weakness: the tallest concept at ~695px, and past work earns real space on a card whose job is to judge one proposal.
My pick — the card shows only what was made for you. Two 266px renders, each captioned with the room it answers, and the "Designed for you" glass tag sits on the first image so the claim travels with the artwork rather than living in a heading. Past work becomes one text link, which is the honest weight for it in a tab about judging one proposal. The empty state fills the same footprint, so cards stay the same height whether or not renders exist — the list does not go ragged. Weakness: a homeowner who wants to check credentials has to leave the card.
Both kinds visible at once, split by a rule. Renders take the wide left column at 186px; past work is a fixed 196px column of 86px thumbnails with a +13 overlay. The vertical rule and the 2:1 size ratio carry the distinction, so neither needs a long label. Best if credentials genuinely matter at this stage. Weakness: at 840px the right column costs a quarter of the card, and the renders — the thing being judged — end up smaller than in either other concept; the empty state also leaves a dashed panel beside a full grid of past work, which reads as the PRO having done nothing for you.
The empty case stops being empty — it just changes what leads. With no renders, Past work takes the wide left column at 210×158 with its specialisms named, and the request becomes a 214px panel on the sunken tint beside it. Nothing is dashed and nothing is missing: the PRO wrote a real proposal, so the card shows the evidence they do have and offers the render as a next step rather than reporting an absence. The two blocks are the same height, so the row reads as a designed pair. Once renders arrive the order inverts — designs take the full width at 238px and past work drops to a text link, which is 1b's populated state. Weakness: the same card now has two quite different layouts, so a homeowner scanning a list of five sees more variation than in 1a, where the bands never move.
My pick: 1b — the Submissions tab exists to judge one proposal, so the card should show only what was made for this brief, with the tag sitting on the artwork and past work reduced to a link. Take 1d if PROs are expected to answer in writing before rendering — it is 1b plus a no-render layout that leads with past work instead of a dashed panel. Take 1a if past work must stay visible on the card; 1c only if a homeowner is expected to weigh credentials and renders in the same glance. On labelling: “Designed for you” beats “Your renders” or “Proposal images” because it names who the work is for, which is the whole distinction from a portfolio.