# Ranked Estuary Specimens

The scoring function favors edge complexity, balanced habitat mix, channel sinuosity, creek density, tidal swing, and islands while penalizing isolated water.

| Rank | Seed | Name | Score | Why it ranked highly |
| --- | ---: | --- | ---: | --- |
| 1 | 31027 | Glass lagoon | 5.3379 | edge 0.0328, swing 0.2485, sinuosity 1.4538, 8 creeks, 2 islands |
| 2 | 31081 | Tern lagoon | 5.046 | edge 0.0288, swing 0.2403, sinuosity 1.4225, 8 creeks |
| 3 | 31117 | Bracken saltern | 4.8836 | edge 0.0232, swing 0.2221, sinuosity 1.396, 7 creeks |
| 4 | 31103 | Vellum marsh | 4.841 | edge 0.0236, swing 0.2439, sinuosity 1.4247, 6 creeks |
| 5 | 31277 | Sable bight | 4.8029 | edge 0.0228, swing 0.2377, sinuosity 1.3372, 6 creeks |
| 6 | 31231 | Warden sound | 4.7843 | edge 0.026, swing 0.2527, sinuosity 1.486, 5 creeks |
| 7 | 31357 | Morrow narrows | 4.7777 | edge 0.0236, swing 0.2405, sinuosity 1.2815, 7 creeks |
| 8 | 31181 | Glass haven | 4.7659 | edge 0.0258, swing 0.2109, sinuosity 1.4401, 6 creeks |
| 9 | 31387 | Bracken mouth | 4.6858 | edge 0.0195, swing 0.2535, sinuosity 1.3777, 5 creeks |
| 10 | 31307 | Silt reach | 4.6656 | edge 0.0277, swing 0.2754, sinuosity 1.2022, 8 creeks |

## Reading Notes

High scores should not be read as realism. They identify specimens that are visually and structurally dense enough to reward inspection: multiple habitat bands, a nontrivial shoreline, and enough tide-driven area change to make the map feel alive.