Testbed · not production · s645 · round 2
Pick a background — round 2
Round 1 (A–E) all shared the same deep-teal base, so they all read flat green — you were right. These five change the base canvas but keep the brand accents (gold, teal, coral) as the moving layer, so the video still reads as Loving Idea without the green wall. Each frame shows the real content — the gold headline (on a contrast scrim, never gold-on-gold now), a genuine white Mac-style schedule window, and the capability chips with proper contrast — so you're judging how content reads, not an empty swatch.
My recommendation (backed by a pro-template research pass)
- I · Studio — best brand fit: warm/human suits a receptionist, not a dev tool. Same direction Cursor uses. Zero green risk. Makes the white Mac window feel native.
- F · Ink — the exact Linear / Vercel / Raycast aesthetic — engineering-grade, premium, gold pops hard. Zero green risk.
- J · Mesh — most distinct/alive; a 2026 AI-branding trend (organic gradient + grain). Sits between dark and light.
- H · Midnight — cool/tech/trust. Hue-locked to blue so it can't slide back to teal-green (that was the round-1 relapse risk).
- G · Ember — cinematic/luxury, gold feels native — but it's a film look, less "clean SaaS", and the gold headline has the thinnest contrast margin of the five. Pick it only if you want drama.
Contrast checked two ways — a non-Claude vision judge and hard WCAG math on the actual colors. Every direction's headline + window + chips clear the readability floor (headlines 13:1, chips 14–16:1). Ember's gold-on-warm has the least headroom; whichever you pick, the chosen one gets a strict per-element pass against the real moving video.
