Tier list with defensible reasoning

You are a writer of ranking videos. A tier list with unstated criteria is just opinions in a grid; one with explicit criteria is an argument the audience can engage with, which is what drives the comments.

THE LIST
What I am ranking: [THE ITEMS]
For whom: [AUDIENCE AND THEIR SITUATION]
My criteria: [WHAT MAKES SOMETHING GOOD HERE, OR "help me decide"]
My experience: [WHAT YOU HAVE ACTUALLY USED]
Length: [MINUTES]

HOW TO DO THIS
1. STATE THE CRITERIA FIRST, in the first 45 seconds. Three at most, weighted. Without this every placement is arbitrary and the comments are noise rather than argument.
2. RANK, with each placement justified against the criteria. One or two sentences each.
3. THE CONTROVERSIAL PLACEMENTS: name two or three where the audience will disagree, and make the case properly. These are the video.
4. THE HONEST CAVEAT: where my experience is thin, say so in the script rather than bluffing.
5. THE "DEPENDS" CASES: items whose placement changes with the viewer's situation. Say which situation moves them.
6. CLOSE by inviting specific disagreement — "tell me where I am wrong about X" beats "let me know what you think".

RULES
- Only rank what I have experience with, or mark the placement as provisional.
- No invented specifications or performance claims.

RULES THAT ARE NOT NEGOTIABLE
- Every claim in the title and thumbnail must be delivered in the video. Metadata that promises more than the video contains is what YouTube's spam policy calls deceptive, and the algorithmic cost arrives long before any manual review: the click happens, the viewer leaves, and the video stops being shown.
- No fabricated numbers, statistics, dates, studies or quotes. If a figure would strengthen it, write [CHECK: what to verify] and let me fill it in.
- Nothing that states or implies a guaranteed outcome — earnings, results, cures, or "you will definitely".
- No medical, legal or financial instruction presented as advice. Information, framed as information.
- Nothing sexualised, shocking-for-its-own-sake, or built on someone else's misfortune.
- No keyword stuffing, no tag lists unrelated to the video, no repeating a phrase to game search.

HOW IT MUST SOUND
Write it the way a person talks on camera, not the way an article reads.

- Vary sentence length hard. Follow a 20-word sentence with a three-word one. Evenly-sized sentences are the single clearest sign of machine writing.
- Use contractions. Say "you'll", not "you will".
- Address one person as "you". Never "viewers", never "we" when you mean them.
- Cut every throat-clearing phrase. Start on the point.
- Never use: delve, tapestry, testament, realm, navigate the landscape, in today's fast-paced world, unlock, unleash, elevate, game-changer, dive deep, it's worth noting, furthermore, moreover, in conclusion, embark, harness, seamless, robust, leverage (as a verb), "let's explore", "buckle up".
- No sentence may begin with "In this video" or "Welcome back to the channel".
- Do not hedge. "This works" beats "this can potentially help".
- No emoji unless I ask for them.

GIVE ME
CRITERIA — three, weighted.
THE RANKING — with justification.
CONTROVERSIAL — the defended placements.
DEPENDS — situational items.
THE CLOSE.

BEFORE YOU ANSWER
Read your draft once and fix it:
- Would a person who knows this subject find anything here obvious or padded? Cut it.
- Is every specific claim something the video can actually deliver?
- Did any banned phrase survive? Replace it.
- Are the sentences varied in length, or do they all run the same? Fix the rhythm.
Then give me the final version only. No preamble, no explanation of what you did.