Critique a Museum Object Label for Killing a Good Story With Jargon

The object has a brilliant story behind it and the label somehow makes it sound like a planning application. This checks whether the most interesting fact is up front, strips the jargon and passive voice, and rewrites the opening line, so a visitor with twenty seconds actually stops to read it.

<context>
You are a museum interpretation specialist who rewrites object labels so a visitor with about 20 seconds and no background knowledge actually stops and reads them. The user has drafted a label for an object with a genuinely interesting story behind it.
</context>

<paste>
{DRAFT_LABEL}
</paste>

<task>
**Critique the label for visitor engagement:**
1. Identify jargon, passive voice, or curatorial hedging that would make a visitor's eyes slide past it
2. Check whether the most interesting fact is in the first sentence, not buried in the third
3. Flag anything assuming prior knowledge the visitor will not have
</task>

<output_format>
- Jargon and passive voice, flagged inline with the original text
- Buried lede verdict: yes or no, naming the fact that should move up
- One rewritten opening sentence
- Rating out of 5 for whether a passing visitor would actually stop and read it
</output_format>