categoryNarratives = ({ CW: `Not one remark here carried a complaint. Every resident who spoke about comfort spoke warmly, in three ways. Some described bodily ease, a home that is never harsh to be in; one likened walking inside to being wrapped in a blanket. Others pointed to health, including a resident whose severe asthma nearly disappeared after moving in, and others who chose hempcrete for their chemical sensitivities and found real relief. A third group dwelt on the senses: the texture of natural materials, the light, walls that feel alive. A perfect score is rare, so read it precisely. Among the homes that spoke, praise was unanimous. Two homes simply had nothing to say.`, TH: `This is the topic residents had most to say about, and every home said something. Nobody complained. The strongest praise went to how steadily these homes hold their temperature: cool through heat waves, warm through hard winters, often on nothing more than a wood stove. Several residents described coming home in winter to a house that had kept its warmth on its own. Remarks on energy use were positive without exception, and more than one household noted how little recent fuel price shocks touched them. Humidity drew the most measured talk, most praising the walls' moisture regulation and the absence of damp, a few unable to judge either way. The neutral remarks are open verdicts, not soft complaints.`, AC: `This score sits lower than comfort or temperature for an unusual reason: several residents live in places too quiet to judge. Homes on rural sites reported no outside noise to test the walls against, and said so honestly. Those answers count as neutral, and they pull the number down without a complaint behind them. Where the walls did face a real test, they passed emphatically. Two homes host public music venues, and both reported loud music inside, near silence outside, and rooms with no resonance, which musicians notice. Everyday accounts matched, from parties that never woke a sleeping child to closed windows that shut out the world. Read this as a ceiling on what could be assessed, not dissatisfaction.`, DM: `A middling score could easily be misread as the material wearing poorly. The data says nearly the opposite. Residents reported the hempcrete wall aging without trouble; one venue owner found no sign of aging after a decade of public events. The only reservations were mild, a note that the outer face can take a knock. On upkeep, every remark was positive, and most households have had nothing to do. What pulls the score down is the finish applied over the wall, a separate decision from the material itself. One self-built home used an inexperienced plasterer and paid for it in cracks, by the owner's own admission. Where finishes were chosen and applied well, residents reported no trouble.`, SP: `The lowest score, and it measures something worth being clear about: not the homes, but how the outside world receives them. Friends, family, and neighbors mostly react with warmth or curiosity, often surprised at how pleasant the houses feel, and skeptical questions about fire, pests, and damp tend to dissolve on a visit. Public attention has been entirely positive, though only a few homes drew any. The real weight sits with professionals. Of the handful of remarks about builders, trades, and institutions, most were negative: one builder insisted a breathable wall would leak; owners described a trade locked into old habits. One enthusiastic building official was the exception. The friction is with the industry, not the living.`, RC: `Asked to sum it up, residents were unanimous. Every household that gave a verdict said they were satisfied and would make the same choice again, several in exactly those words. What lowers the category is a smaller, harder question about hindsight, which only three households addressed, and their regrets are about process, not the material. One owner wishes he had waited for an experienced plasterer; his partner wishes they had kept their consultant throughout; one resident would pick a different floor finish. Notably, nobody would pick a different wall. Because those hindsight remarks come from so few homes, hold them lightly, but their pattern matches the rest of the data: the lessons are about execution, not the choice itself.`, VM: `Residents chose this material on conviction, and years of living with it have not shaken those convictions. Every home spoke to its values, and nearly every remark was positive. Ecology led: storing carbon, avoiding petroleum-based products, building in a way that sits lighter on the planet. Several chose it out of a health philosophy, wanting a home free of synthetic chemicals before they ever moved in. Others spoke of heritage, of building to stand for two hundred years. Many arrived through people: a trusted craftsman, a mentor, a neighbor's example. The single negative note came from a resident observing that health arguments alone rarely convince others, a frustration with persuasion, not a doubt about the choice.`, FF: `Money talk splits cleanly in two, and the split explains the score. Looking back at the point of purchase, residents were matter-of-fact. Some paid a modest premium, one found staged financing a strain, and one named cost as a real barrier to wider adoption. Most remarks are neutral, people stating facts rather than nursing regrets. Looking at what the money bought, every remark was positive. Households described heating bills that barely register, easy indifference to the recent fuel crisis, and in one case a strong energy rating that raised resale value. Everyone who weighed cost against health, ecology, or the chance to build it themselves concluded it was worth it. Only five homes discussed money, so read this one gently.` })