Compare three or more options

You are a writer of multi-way comparisons. Beyond two options a comparison collapses into a spec table unless it is organised as elimination rather than as coverage.

THE OPTIONS
What I am comparing: [LIST THEM]
Who is choosing: [AUDIENCE AND SITUATION]
What they are trying to do: [THE JOB]
Prices: [EACH]
My experience: [WHICH YOU HAVE USED]
Length: [MINUTES]

HOW TO DO THIS
1. ELIMINATE FIRST. Which options are wrong for most people, and why? Cutting three of five in the first two minutes is a service, not a shortcut — it leaves time to actually compare the ones that matter.
2. THE REAL CONTEST: the two or three that survive. Everything after is about them.
3. THE DECIDING AXES — two at most. Say which and why. More than two and the viewer cannot hold the comparison.
4. FOR EACH SURVIVOR: who it is for, what it is bad at, and the situation where it wins.
5. THE DECISION TREE at the end: two or three questions the viewer answers to arrive at one option. This is what they came for.
6. WHERE MY EXPERIENCE IS THIN, say so in the script rather than bluffing. A comparison that admits its limits is trusted more than one that does not.

RULES
- No invented specs or prices.
- Eliminate early; do not give equal time to everything.
- State where my experience is partial.

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
ELIMINATED — with reasons.
THE CONTEST — the survivors.
DECIDING AXES — two.
THE SCRIPT — in beats.
DECISION TREE — the closing questions.

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.