Okay so I've been modelling the "indicative votes" route in Parliament supported by Rudd, Lidington etc... 1/ To model "every conceivable" option you have to model Labour's; let's call it Norway-minus...
2/ Suppose you ask MPs to pick ONLY their most favoured option. My guess is 60 Tories go for No Deal; 140 for Canada FTA; the rest split 55:60 for Norway Plus and PV...
3/ 10x DUP support Canada; 39 SNP/PC support Norway Plus; 1x Green supports PV; Libdems support PV
4/ If Norway Minus is on the card, say 180 Labour vote for their own deal; 10 vote Canada; 30x Norway Plus and 37x PV...
5/ Now for the entirely speculative results: Labour's deal comes top of the ballot (180) even with NO SUPPORT from any other party. Then Canada (155), then PV (140) then PV (124)...but
6/ If the Tories refuse to put Labour's deal, and Labour were to be unwrapped, the outcome is PV (230), then Norway Plus (214) then Canada (155). NOTE: These are just guesses but not completely wild ones...
7/ If you did it by STV I suspect it would produce this latter result also: i) Norway Plus ii) PV iii) Canada. Conculsions follow:
8/ If HMG wants to be guided by an indicative vote, it needs to be "choose one" or STV. It needs to have Labour's option on the ballot paper. If it does not it will produce a Norway Plus outcome - but if Norway refusing to do it, that leads to PV...
9/ Political conclusion: this parliament wants either a very soft Brexit or No Brexit. If you want a hard Brexit you have to do it through PV or No Deal, or get an electoral mandate for a different party than May's Tories....
10/ Finally, with tweaks, what an STV ballot might look like for an indicative vote in parliament, with or without Labour's proposal (assuming Labour unwhipped). Labour's proposal might gain an indicative majority if it were put to a transferable vote; if not, PV. All guesswork. 
