I decided not to go all out at the start. I was not sure the testing method would hold up, so instead of sending all three stories to a big group, I ran a small pilot with just the door story. The goal was to see whether the test does what I designed it to do before I scale it up. This block is only what came back. The analysis comes in the next one.
I tested it on 10 people, split into two groups of five. Five saw the illustration first, and five saw the photograph first. Everyone saw both versions in the end and answered about each one, then compared them. The numbers are small, so I treat them as a first signal, not as proof.
What came back
Understanding. Both versions got the story across. Four of the five who saw the illustration correctly mentioned the final push, and four of the five who saw the photograph did too. On pure comprehension, the two were even. The medium did not decide whether people understood the story.
The turning point. The illustration group named the push moment a little earlier and more consistently, which fits, since the arrows point straight at it. The photo group was more spread out. Some sensed it at the confused pause, some only at the last frame.
Feeling. This is where the two parted. The illustration pulled words like funny, frustrating, stupid, and confusing. The photograph pulled serious, funny, calm, and stupid, with a few people writing in a confused “huh?”. Both read as a little silly, which suits a story about failing at a door, but the texture differed. The illustration felt light and funny, but its simplicity also made some people call it confusing. The photograph felt calmer and more serious, more like watching a real person have an ordinary moment.
Trust. People trusted the illustration more as an instruction. This surprised me, because I expected the photograph to feel more credible by default. It did not work that way. For something you are meant to follow, the clarity of the drawing seemed to count for more than the realism of the photo.
Effort. The illustration was rated easier to read. Less visual noise, and attention goes straight to the action. The photograph carries a whole real room, so there is more to take in.
Consistency. This was my fairness check, to see whether one set simply looked more finished than the other. The two came out close, with no clear winner. That was good news. It means the comparison was not obviously unbalanced.
Neither version won overall. The illustration was stronger for clarity, trust, and reading ease, and it carried a light, funny tone. The photograph was stronger for emotion, calm, and the sense of a real person in a real moment. Comprehension was a tie, and consistency was even.
So the early pattern is the one I guessed at the very beginning. There is no single winner. The drawing seems to communicate the instruction, the photograph seems to communicate the feeling. Ten people cannot prove that, but it is a good sign that the split showed up this clearly this early. Why it split this way is the question for the next block.
