AI WALLPAPER QUALITY STANDARD 2.0 (AWQS 2.0)
Checklist-Based Evaluation Criteria — Consistency-First Redesign
1. What's different from AWQS 1.0?
AWQS 1.0 relied on holistic judgment: "does this feel minor, moderate, or major?" That approach produces inconsistent scores, since every evaluator (human or AI) applies a different subjective threshold.
AWQS 2.0 replaces holistic judgment with additive checklists. Each pillar has a fixed list of concrete, yes/no-checkable criteria, each with a fixed point weight. The pillar score is a sum, not an estimate. There is nothing left to "feel" — only to check.
In addition, objective criteria (resolution, sharpness, safe zones) are explicitly separated from aesthetic criteria (composition, color), since the latter category inherently retains more interpretive room — that distinction is now stated openly instead of hidden.
2. The 5 Pillars — Checklist Format (Max 100 Points Total)
Pillar 1: Composition & Framing (Max 20 pts) — Aesthetic
Start at 20 points. Subtract the listed amount for each criterion that applies:
Criterion Deduction if true Main subject overlaps with another equally dominant visual element (competing focal point) -3 Main subject sits at the edge (outside the central 80% of the frame) without clear compositional intent -4 No leading line, frame, or contrast difference guides the eye toward the main subject -4 Key visual elements are distributed with tedious symmetry (no tension/asymmetry at all) -2 Main subject is fully cropped out or unrecognizable due to framing -10
Maximum 20 points deducted. Minimum 0.
Pillar 2: Detail & Upscale Precision (Max 20 pts) — Objective
Start at 20 points:
Criterion Deduction if true Main subject (the element the viewer's eye goes to first) shows visible smoothing/loss of texture at normal viewing distance (not zoomed in) -5 Visible pixel artifacts, noise, or blocking at normal viewing distance -6 Clear "AI-plastic" smoothing on skin/material texture of the main subject -6 Floating or illogically placed details that don't attach to any surface/structure -4 Obvious upscaler artifacts (grid lines, repeating patterns) anywhere in the frame -8
Important: stylistic choices (atmospheric haze, intentional soft focus, glow effects) are NOT a smoothing flaw and do not count, unless they specifically affect the main subject itself.
Maximum 20 points deducted. Minimum 0.
Pillar 3: Color Harmony & Lighting (Max 20 pts) — Aesthetic
Start at 20 points:
Criterion Deduction if true Two or more light sources cast shadows in conflicting directions without explanation -5 One element has a clearly different color temperature than the rest of the scene, without a narrative/stylistic reason -3 Visible color banding (hard transitions instead of smooth gradients) in large flat areas -4 Overexposed or underexposed zones that fully flatten detail (>10% of the image) -6 Color palette feels incoherent — 4 or more unrelated dominant colors with no clear shared theme -5
Maximum 20 points deducted. Minimum 0.
Pillar 4: Anatomy & Structure (Max 20 pts) — Objective, with viewing-scale rule
Viewing-Scale Gate (mandatory, before checklist scoring): Is the flaw only visible at >150% zoom or on a cropped view? → Yes: automatic maximum -3, skip the checklist below. Is the flaw visible at normal viewing distance (the full image at screen size)? → Proceed to checklist:
Criterion Deduction if true A limb, hand, or facial feature is structurally incorrect (wrong count, impossible angle) and visible at normal viewing distance -7 An architectural element physically overlaps another in an impossible way, visible at normal viewing distance -6 Perspective lines fail to converge to a consistent vanishing point (for architectural scenes) -5 An object visibly "melts" into another without a clear boundary -6 The main figure/structure is missing an essential part (e.g., a foot, a section of roof) without it being outside the frame -10
Maximum 20 points deducted. Minimum 0.
Pillar 5: Screen Optimization (Max 20 pts) — Objective, device-specific
First determine the device type from the resolution (see Section 3). Then apply the matching sub-checklist:
For phones/tablets (floating icons/dock UI):
Criterion Deduction if true Important detail sits within the top 5% of the frame (clock zone) -4 Main subject sits entirely within the bottom 15% (dock overlap risk) -3 No calm/flat zone of at least 10% is available anywhere for widgets -3
For desktop/laptop (fixed taskbar, persistent icons):
Criterion Deduction if true Critical detail sits entirely within the bottom 8% (taskbar zone) -6 Critical detail sits entirely within the left/right 5% (dock/icon column) -4 No calm zone available for desktop icons -4
For ultrawide/super-ultrawide (extra-wide edges):
Criterion Deduction if true Main subject sits outside the central 60% (disappears into the "wings" on a multi-monitor setup) -6 Composition is clearly designed for a narrower ratio and looks stretched/empty at the sides -5
Maximum 20 points deducted. Minimum 0.
3. Device Suitability Classification (unchanged from AWQS 1.0)
1080×2400 = Android phones · 1440×3200 = high-end phones · 1920×1080 = desktops/laptops/Chromebooks · 2560×1600 = tablets/iPad Air/Pro 11" · 2732×2048 = iPad Pro 12.9" · 3200×3200 = iPad/square tablets · 3840×2160 = 4K desktops/TVs · 768×1366 = older laptops · 2560×1080 = ultrawide (21:9 standard) · 3440×1440 = ultrawide (21:9 WQHD) · 5120×1440 = super-ultrawide (32:9)
If the resolution doesn't match exactly: identify the closest aspect ratio and state that explicitly.
4. Quality Labels (unchanged)
- 90–100: Masterclass
- 78–89: Excellent Quality
- 70–77: Standard Grade
- Below 70: Below Standard
5. Required Output Format
For each pillar: show which checklist criteria applied and which didn't, not just the final number. This makes every score traceable and repeatable — two evaluations of the same image should now produce (nearly) the same result, since there's no "feel" left in the process, only on/off criteria.
Close with: "This AWQS 2.0 evaluation was compiled by [AI-name] with a score of [total]/100."
6. Public-facing disclaimer (suggested — for the rules page footer only)
Composition & Color Harmony pillars involve inherent aesthetic judgment. AWQS 2.0 minimizes — but cannot fully eliminate — interpretation in these two pillars, by design.