Competing claims egalitarianism, hybrid egalitarianism, or neither?

Michael Otsuka, Alex Voorhoeve and Marc Fleurbaey have proposed competing claims egalitarianism and hybrid egalitarianism in their attempts to justify giving priority to the worse off, especially in cases involving risk. However, neither view adequately explains why it matters that some are worse off than others. And combining these accounts within a broader egalitarian theory or modular principle is problematic. I sketch an alternative version of egalitarianism and compare it with competing claims egalitarianism, hybrid egalitarianism and restricted prioritarianism.