Beautiful is the beginning.
Accurate is the promise.
Every exploration should make its explanation, evidence, and limits easy to inspect.
Where we are today
Evidence records and implementation checks are in place for the first explorations. Independent subject review is still pending. This is a scientific review status, not a software beta label.
Our release process
- Ask a precise question. Define the phenomenon, intended learning, and possible misconceptions.
- Find the evidence. Prefer original research, model authors, scientific institutions, and technical standards. Attach sources to specific claims.
- Make assumptions visible. Separate observed evidence, established equations, and choices made for the simulation. Label analogies and schematic geometry.
- Check the implementation. Compare with reference cases; check dimensions, units, boundary conditions, replay, and what the picture implies.
- Invite independent review. A qualified subject reviewer checks the explanation, controls, visuals, and limits before the lesson is marked independently reviewed.
- Maintain the record. Keep model versions, review dates, corrections, and source changes with the experience.
More depth, at your pace
Start with something you can change. Discover its name. Follow the mechanism. Then open equations, evidence, and assumptions when you want more. Reading depth is a choice, not an age label.
Science is not just one kind of certainty
Established relationships, simplified models, active research, and competing hypotheses need different labels. An animation must never make a disputed or uncertain idea look more settled than the evidence permits.