# DQ-100 M2 (GA) Banner Review
**Evaluator**: Loki (Red Team Lead / Devil's Advocate)  
**Date**: 2026-04-02  
**Methodology**: DQ 10-item, 100-point scale. Default posture = NEEDS WORK. Fantasy Approval prohibited.  
**PASS threshold**: 93+

---

## Overall Summary

| Banner | Score | Verdict |
|--------|-------|---------|
| m2-1-1200x628 | 87 | **FAIL** |
| m2-1-1080x1080 | 86 | **FAIL** |
| m2-2-1200x628 | 85 | **FAIL** |
| m2-2-1080x1080 | 84 | **FAIL** |
| m2-3-1200x628 | 73 | **FAIL** |
| m2-3-1080x1080 | 78 | **FAIL** |

**Aggregate Average: 82.2 / 100 -- ALL FAIL**

---

## Banner 1: m2-1-1200x628.png

### Visual Observations
- Left 60% charcoal-green gradient overlay, right side shows document/coffee stock photo
- Headline "GA 수수료 구조, 제대로 비교하세요" in white, subcopy in green, aux in white
- CTA "GA 비교하기 ->" teal button bottom-left
- Text hierarchy: headline > subcopy > aux > CTA is clear top-to-bottom

### Scores

| DQ Item | Score | Reasoning |
|---------|-------|-----------|
| DQ-01: Reference Fidelity | 8 | Charcoal green overlay with gradient fade-right is well-executed. Photo background contextually appropriate (documents = comparison theme). |
| DQ-02: Visual Hierarchy | 9 | Clear 4-level stack: headline (54px/700) > subcopy (44px/500) > aux (40px/500) > CTA (44px/700). Eye flows naturally top-left to CTA. |
| DQ-03: Pro Finish | 8 | Gradient blending is smooth. Minor issue: aux text ".cm" artifact visible at end of "비교하세요.cm" -- rendering glitch from HTML source clipping. |
| DQ-04: Feed Differentiation | 9 | Split-panel design with diagonal gradient stands out from typical full-overlay insurance ads. Checklist imagery is thematically distinct. |
| DQ-05: Emotional Impact | 8 | "같은 일인데 수수료가 다르다면?" triggers comparison anxiety well. "7월 규제 변화 전" adds urgency. |
| DQ-06: Whitespace/Layout | 9 | Left 720px text zone with 60px padding is generous. Vertical spacing (20px, 16px gaps) prevents crowding. CTA at y:530 leaves 42px bottom breathing room. |
| DQ-07: Color/WCAG AAA | 8 | Headline #FAFAFA on charcoal: ~11.9:1 (AAA PASS). Subcopy #A5D6A7 on charcoal: ~7.6:1 (AAA large-text PASS). **CTA #1A3320 on #00897B: 3.16:1 -- FAILS AAA large-text 4.5:1 threshold.** -2 penalty. |
| DQ-08: Typography | 9 | All fonts >= 40px, weights 500-700. Pretendard Bold headline is crisp. Letter-spacing -1px on headline is tight but readable. |
| DQ-09: CTA Effectiveness | 10 | "GA 비교하기 ->" includes arrow, is action-specific and concrete. No generic "자세히 보기". |
| DQ-10: Brand Consistency | 9 | Charcoal green overlay correct. Headline #FAFAFA, subcopy #A5D6A7, CTA teal #00897B + deep dark green #1A3320 all match spec. border-radius 4px correct. No brand badge. No GA name exposed. |

**Total: 87 / 100 -- FAIL**

**Critical Issues:**
1. CTA contrast ratio 3.16:1 fails WCAG AAA (needs 4.5:1 for large text)
2. Rendering artifact ".cm" appended to aux text (visible in rendered PNG)
3. CTA button height 56px may feel cramped for 44px font (only 6px vertical padding each side)

---

## Banner 2: m2-1-1080x1080.png

### Visual Observations
- Full-frame charcoal green overlay (opacity 0.58) over same document background
- Center-aligned text stack: headline (62px) > subcopy (44px) > aux (40px) > CTA (48px)
- Clean centered composition for square format

### Scores

| DQ Item | Score | Reasoning |
|---------|-------|-----------|
| DQ-01: Reference Fidelity | 8 | Charcoal green full overlay adapts well for square. Opacity 0.58 is lighter than landscape variant -- background shows through more, slightly reducing overlay authority. |
| DQ-02: Visual Hierarchy | 9 | Center-stacked 4-level hierarchy. Size differentiation (62 > 44 > 40 > 48) is clear. CTA at bottom of stack is natural endpoint. |
| DQ-03: Pro Finish | 8 | Clean rendering. Overlay uniformity is good. No text-shadow artifacts. Minor: background doc details bleed through at 0.58 opacity, creating visual noise behind subcopy. |
| DQ-04: Feed Differentiation | 8 | Square centered layout is more conventional than the landscape split-panel. Loses some of the distinctive asymmetry. |
| DQ-05: Emotional Impact | 8 | Same copy -- anxiety hook + urgency works. Square format's centered layout feels slightly less dramatic than landscape's editorial feel. |
| DQ-06: Whitespace/Layout | 9 | Padding 96px/72px is generous. Center-aligned with adequate gaps (24px). Vertical centering (justify-content: center) distributes space well. |
| DQ-07: Color/WCAG AAA | 8 | Headline ~11.9:1 PASS. Subcopy ~7.6:1 PASS. **CTA #1A3320 on #00897B: 3.16:1 -- FAILS AAA.** Same systemic CTA contrast issue. |
| DQ-08: Typography | 9 | 62px headline is properly scaled up for square. All weights 500+. 48px CTA is bold and legible. |
| DQ-09: CTA Effectiveness | 10 | "GA 비교하기 ->" with arrow, specific action verb. |
| DQ-10: Brand Consistency | 9 | All M2-1 colors match. border-radius 4px. No badge. Consistent with landscape variant. |

**Total: 86 / 100 -- FAIL**

**Critical Issues:**
1. CTA contrast ratio 3.16:1 fails WCAG AAA
2. Background bleed-through at 0.58 opacity creates visual noise behind light green subcopy
3. Square format loses distinctive asymmetric split-panel identity of the landscape variant

---

## Banner 3: m2-2-1200x628.png

### Visual Observations
- Left ~55% mid-green gradient overlay, right shows professional male at standing desk
- Headline "GA 지점장, 가장 빠른 경로 안내" in white
- Support items "교육 | 인프라 | 운영 지원" in green
- CTA "지점장 경로 확인 ->" forest green button
- Small disclaimer text at bottom (barely readable)

### Scores

| DQ Item | Score | Reasoning |
|---------|-------|-----------|
| DQ-01: Reference Fidelity | 8 | Mid-green #2D5016 overlay at 0.72 opacity. Stock photo of professional at standing desk contextualizes "지점장" theme well. |
| DQ-02: Visual Hierarchy | 9 | Headline (54px/700) > support items (44px/500) > aux (40px/500) > CTA (44px/700). Clear 4-level differentiation. |
| DQ-03: Pro Finish | 8 | Gradient blending quality is solid. Small disclaimer text at bottom is so small it's nearly invisible -- adds visual noise without readability. |
| DQ-04: Feed Differentiation | 8 | Standing desk photo is a fresh angle for insurance recruitment ads. Green overlay tone is distinct from M2-1's charcoal. |
| DQ-05: Emotional Impact | 8 | "가장 빠른 경로 안내" promises efficiency. "독립 운영 + GA의 안정적 지원" balances independence with support. Good tension resolution. |
| DQ-06: Whitespace/Layout | 8 | Text zone 660px (narrower than M2-1's 720px). Content fits but feels slightly denser. CTA at y:530 with w:240 is proportional. |
| DQ-07: Color/WCAG AAA | 8 | Headline #FAFAFA on midgreen: ~8.9:1 PASS. Support #A5D6A7 on midgreen: ~5.6:1 (large text AAA PASS at 4.5:1). **CTA #FAFAFA on #2E7D32: 4.91:1 -- large text AAA PASS but under 7:1 normal text.** Borderline. |
| DQ-08: Typography | 9 | All fonts 40px+, weights 500-700. Pretendard renders cleanly. |
| DQ-09: CTA Effectiveness | 9 | "지점장 경로 확인 ->" includes arrow and is specific. However "경로 확인" is slightly abstract -- "지점장 되기" would be more direct. -1. |
| DQ-10: Brand Consistency | 10 | Mid green #2D5016 overlay correct. CTA forest green #2E7D32 + white #FAFAFA matches M2-2 spec. border-radius 4px. No badge. No GA name. |

**Total: 85 / 100 -- FAIL**

**Critical Issues:**
1. Support items use #A5D6A7 (M2-1 system) rather than a white/neutral more consistent with M2-2's lighter palette intent
2. Tiny disclaimer text at bottom is illegible and adds visual clutter
3. CTA "경로 확인" is somewhat vague -- not as conversion-driving as "지금 시작하기" or "지점장 되기"

---

## Banner 4: m2-2-1080x1080.png

### Visual Observations
- Top-to-bottom green gradient overlay (0.71 top, fading to transparent bottom)
- Person visible in lower portion through fade
- Center-aligned text stack at top portion
- CTA "지점장 경로 확인 ->" centered

### Scores

| DQ Item | Score | Reasoning |
|---------|-------|-----------|
| DQ-01: Reference Fidelity | 8 | Square adaptation uses vertical gradient instead of horizontal -- smart adaptation. Mid-green tone preserved. |
| DQ-02: Visual Hierarchy | 8 | Center-stacked hierarchy works but the visible person in lower half competes for attention with the text stack above. Two focal points. -1. |
| DQ-03: Pro Finish | 8 | Gradient transition from opaque top to transparent bottom is smooth. Person visible but slightly dark due to remaining overlay tint. |
| DQ-04: Feed Differentiation | 8 | Vertical reveal of person underneath gradient is an interesting approach. Distinguishes from M2-1's full overlay square. |
| DQ-05: Emotional Impact | 8 | Same copy. Person visible at bottom adds human element. |
| DQ-06: Whitespace/Layout | 8 | Top-aligned (justify-content: flex-start) with 88px top padding. Bottom half is photo zone. Adequate separation. |
| DQ-07: Color/WCAG AAA | 8 | Headline ~8.9:1 PASS. Support #A5D6A7 on midgreen: ~5.6:1 (large text AAA PASS). **CTA #FAFAFA on #2E7D32: 4.91:1 -- large text AAA PASS.** Better than M2-1 CTA. |
| DQ-08: Typography | 9 | 60px headline, 44px support, 40px aux, 48px CTA. All >= 40px and 500+. |
| DQ-09: CTA Effectiveness | 9 | "지점장 경로 확인 ->" with arrow. Same abstract wording issue as landscape. |
| DQ-10: Brand Consistency | 8 | Colors match M2-2 spec. border-radius 4px correct. However, bottom-transparent gradient means M2-2's green identity weakens in lower half, reducing brand color coverage to ~50%. |

**Total: 84 / 100 -- FAIL**

**Critical Issues:**
1. Dual focal point: text stack vs. visible person compete for attention
2. Brand color coverage drops to ~50% due to bottom-transparent gradient
3. Support items #A5D6A7 borrowed from M2-1 system (cross-contamination)

---

## Banner 5: m2-3-1200x628.png

### Visual Observations
- Light background with left overlay panel (rgba(232,245,233,0.80))
- Right side shows two people collaborating at laptop
- Headline in forest green, subcopy in cool gray
- CTA "영업지원 GA 알아보기 ->" -- **VISUALLY CLIPPED at left edge**
- border-radius 8px (SPEC VIOLATION)

### Scores

| DQ Item | Score | Reasoning |
|---------|-------|-----------|
| DQ-01: Reference Fidelity | 7 | Light background approach matches M2-3 spec concept. However, border-radius 8px instead of 4px is a direct spec violation. -2. |
| DQ-02: Visual Hierarchy | 7 | Headline > subcopy > aux > CTA structure exists but CTA is CLIPPED at left edge of canvas, cutting off "영" character partially. Major hierarchy failure at the conversion endpoint. -3. |
| DQ-03: Pro Finish | 5 | **CTA text clipping is a critical production defect.** Left edge of "영업지원" is cut off. This is a showstopper -- no professional banner ships with clipped CTA text. -5. |
| DQ-04: Feed Differentiation | 8 | Bright/light aesthetic is a strong contrast against M2-1 and M2-2's dark overlays. Collaborative photo adds warmth. |
| DQ-05: Emotional Impact | 8 | "영업이 힘들다면, 시스템 있는 GA로" targets pain point directly. "혼자 뛰지 않는" reinforces togetherness. |
| DQ-06: Whitespace/Layout | 6 | CTA positioned at left:60px but CTA width 280px contains text "영업지원 GA 알아보기 ->" which at 44px/700 likely overflows. The visible clipping confirms layout miscalculation. -4. |
| DQ-07: Color/WCAG AAA | 6 | Headline #2E7D32 on light #E8F5E9: ~4.56:1 -- **FAILS AAA normal text (7:1) but PASSES large text (4.5:1) barely.** Subcopy #546E7A: ~4.80:1 large text AAA PASS. **CTA #1A3320 on #00897B: 3.16:1 -- FAILS AAA.** Two problematic pairs. -4. |
| DQ-08: Typography | 8 | Headline 52px (slightly smaller than M2-1/2's 54px -- minor inconsistency). All fonts 40px+, weights 500-700. |
| DQ-09: CTA Effectiveness | 7 | "영업지원 GA 알아보기 ->" has arrow and is descriptive, but it is CLIPPED and therefore non-functional as a visual CTA. -3. |
| DQ-10: Brand Consistency | 7 | **border-radius 8px instead of spec 4px.** CTA uses teal #00897B (correct) but with 8px radius (incorrect). Canvas also 8px. Two spec violations. Colors otherwise match M2-3 spec. |

**Total: 73 / 100 -- FAIL (CRITICAL)**

**Critical Issues:**
1. **SHOWSTOPPER: CTA text "영업지원 GA 알아보기 ->" is clipped at left edge** -- production-blocking defect
2. border-radius 8px on both canvas and CTA (spec requires 4px)
3. CTA contrast 3.16:1 fails WCAG AAA
4. Headline contrast 4.56:1 barely passes large-text AAA, fails normal-text AAA

---

## Banner 6: m2-3-1080x1080.png

### Visual Observations
- Full background with light green overlay (0.25 opacity) + centered white translucent panel
- White card (80% opacity, 12px radius, blur 4px) contains all text + CTA
- Clean centered layout with text panel approach
- Headline and aux use #1B5E20 (NOT spec #2E7D32), subcopy uses #37474F (NOT spec #546E7A)

### Scores

| DQ Item | Score | Reasoning |
|---------|-------|-----------|
| DQ-01: Reference Fidelity | 6 | White translucent card approach is a creative adaptation but **deviates from M2-3 spec significantly**. Spec says "밝은 배경" (bright background), not "frosted glass card on photo." The card approach changes the design language entirely. -3. Also border-radius 8px (spec 4px). |
| DQ-02: Visual Hierarchy | 9 | Within the card, 4-level hierarchy is clear and well-proportioned. White panel isolates text cleanly from background. |
| DQ-03: Pro Finish | 8 | The frosted glass card is well-executed technically (backdrop-filter: blur(4px), 80% opacity). Professional look. Text shadows add subtle depth. |
| DQ-04: Feed Differentiation | 8 | Frosted glass card on photo is a distinct visual approach. Differentiates from the other M2 variants. |
| DQ-05: Emotional Impact | 8 | Same strong copy. Card containment makes the message feel "packaged" and official. |
| DQ-06: Whitespace/Layout | 9 | Card padding 60px/48px is generous. Internal spacing is clean. Card width 800px in 1080px canvas leaves 140px margin each side. |
| DQ-07: Color/WCAG AAA | 7 | Headline #1B5E20 on white: ~7.87:1 (AAA PASS). Subcopy #37474F on white: ~9.65:1 (AAA PASS). **CTA #1A3320 on #00897B: 3.16:1 -- FAILS AAA.** -3 for CTA. Headline/subcopy are excellent but used WRONG colors per spec. |
| DQ-08: Typography | 9 | 58px headline, 44px subcopy, 40px aux, 48px CTA. All 40px+ and 500-700 weight. |
| DQ-09: CTA Effectiveness | 9 | "영업지원 GA 알아보기 ->" with arrow, specific. NOT clipped in this version (card is wide enough). |
| DQ-10: Brand Consistency | 5 | **Three color spec violations:** Headline #1B5E20 (spec: #2E7D32), subcopy #37474F (spec: #546E7A), aux #1B5E20 (spec: #2E7D32). border-radius 8px (spec: 4px). Canvas border-radius 8px. Frosted glass card is not in spec. -5. |

**Total: 78 / 100 -- FAIL**

**Critical Issues:**
1. **Three color spec violations**: headline, subcopy, and aux all use non-spec colors
2. border-radius 8px on canvas and CTA (spec: 4px)
3. CTA contrast 3.16:1 fails WCAG AAA
4. Frosted glass card design departs from M2-3 "밝은 배경" concept

---

## Cross-Banner Systemic Issues

### Issue A: CTA Contrast Failure (ALL 6 banners)
**#1A3320 on #00897B = 3.16:1** -- This is a systemic design system failure. Every M2-1 and M2-3 banner uses this CTA color pair, which fails WCAG AAA for both normal text (7:1) and large text (4.5:1). M2-2's CTA (#FAFAFA on #2E7D32 = 4.91:1) passes large-text AAA only.

**Recommended fix**: Change CTA text to #FFFFFF on #00897B (contrast ~4.2:1 -- still marginal) or darken CTA background to #00695C (#1A3320 on #00695C = ~3.6:1 -- still insufficient). Best fix: use #FFFFFF text on #005A4F or darker teal.

### Issue B: M2-3 border-radius Violation (2 banners)
Both M2-3 variants use 8px instead of spec 4px. This is a simple config error.

### Issue C: M2-3 1080x1080 Color Deviation (1 banner)
Three colors deviate from spec: #1B5E20 vs #2E7D32, #37474F vs #546E7A. While the chosen colors have BETTER contrast ratios, they break brand consistency.

### Issue D: M2-3 1200x628 CTA Clipping (1 banner)
Production-blocking defect. CTA text overflows its container at current font size.

---

## Recommendations for Re-submission

1. **IMMEDIATE**: Fix m2-3-1200x628 CTA clipping -- increase button width to 380px+ or reduce font to 38px
2. **IMMEDIATE**: Fix border-radius from 8px to 4px on both M2-3 variants
3. **HIGH**: Address CTA contrast across all 6 banners -- either lighten CTA text or darken CTA background
4. **HIGH**: Correct M2-3 1080x1080 colors to match spec (#2E7D32, #546E7A)
5. **MEDIUM**: Remove ".cm" rendering artifact from m2-1-1200x628 aux text
6. **MEDIUM**: Consider increasing M2-1 CTA button height from 56px to 64px for better touch target

---

## Verdict

**ALL 6 BANNERS: FAIL**

No banner reaches the 93-point PASS threshold. The systemic CTA contrast failure (3.16:1 vs 4.5:1 AAA requirement) affects all M2-1 and M2-3 variants. The m2-3-1200x628 CTA clipping is a production blocker. M2-3 1080x1080 has multiple brand color violations. Re-design of CTA color system and targeted fixes required before re-evaluation.

---

*Reviewed by Loki, Red Team Lead. No Fantasy Approvals granted.*