Conciseness

Lean and dense throughout: every rule carries a constant and the failure it prevents ('Otherwise the camera keeps easing during a 100 ms click and the raycast at pointerup misses a piece that moved 6 px'), and the Numbers table packs exact values ('turn | 0.0085 / 0.0065 rad/px, damp 2.4/s, idle 0.26 rad/s after 2.2 s'). No section explains concepts Claude already knows; every token earns its place.

Actionability

The concrete inline guidance is excellent ('fit = min(0.92 bandH, 0.88 W) / (2 R ppu)', 'light.layers.enable(1)', 'shadowMap.autoUpdate = false', exact timings and easing curves), but the headline instruction — 'Reuse `demo.html`... Copy `updateLean`, `updateHand`, `openInspect`, `closeInspect`, the pointer block and `draw`' — points at a file that is not present in the bundle, so the primary reuse path cannot be executed. The missing source file is a key detail gap beyond the 'minor gaps' of the 4 anchor, while the inline constants keep it above the vague/high-level-hints level of 2.

Workflow Clarity

There is a clear porting sequence (reuse the demo module, copy the named functions, 'Swap the meshes for your own object; nothing else names the joint except FROM, RR and Q_BENCH') and an explicit '## Verify' validation checklist covering click-vs-drag, all close paths, focus behavior, reduced motion, and console cleanliness. Not a 5: the 14 rules are concept-ordered rather than an execution sequence, and there is no fix-and-retry feedback loop; not a 3: validation checkpoints are explicit and specific, not merely implied.

Progressive Disclosure

The single file is well-sectioned with clear headers (Rules, Numbers, Room, Reduced motion, Expensive gotchas, Verify), but the body cites 'demo.html' and 'kibori.html' and neither exists in references/, scripts/, or assets/ — the references are dangling, so a reader cannot navigate to the promised source. This sits between the 'references present but not clearly signaled / should be separate' anchor and the broken-structure anchor.

Specificity

The description lists many concrete actions ('damped, bounded camera lean', 'lifts the piece off its bench into the hand', 'drag to turn it, coast, dolly with wheel or pinch, and put it back with Esc, click-away or a Close button'), which is comprehensive coverage on par with the 5 anchor; however, the second-person phrasing 'where you drag to turn it' triggers the rubric's explicit 1-point voice penalty on specificity.

Completeness

It explicitly answers both questions: the what ('hover is a damped, bounded camera lean; click lifts the piece... into the hand') and the when with concrete triggers ('Use for product, object, joinery and portfolio pieces in Three.js where a hover orbit and click-to-full-view must not fight each other'). This matches the 5 anchor's structure of concrete what plus explicit trigger phrases.

Trigger Term Quality

Good natural keyword coverage: '3D object', 'hover', 'inspect view', 'click', 'Three.js', 'product, object, joinery and portfolio pieces' are phrases a user would plausibly say. A few natural variations are missing (e.g., 'WebGL', 'orbit', 'rotate on hover', 'viewer/showcase'), so it falls just short of the comprehensive-with-synonyms anchor.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

It carves out a clear niche and actively disambiguates the two nearest neighbors: 'use webgl-3d-object for a floating hero mesh with no inspect mode, and 3d-virtual-tour for a camera path through a place.' Conflict risk with other skills is minimal.