# Experiment 000 Hypothesis

## Primary hypothesis

A small set of consistent signal laws—vector phase, conservation through splitting, propagation loss, delay, accumulation, thresholds, and feedback—will create legible interactions that prompt the player to form and test an unrequired question.

## Competing explanations

1. The interaction is intrinsically interesting, even with abstract objectives.
2. The laws are interesting but require more embodied or consequential output.
3. The activity feels like ordinary circuit assembly and produces no meaningful curiosity.
4. The idea has promise, but this interface hides causality or makes construction too laborious to judge it.

## Strong evidence

- The player keeps changing a completed network to test an idea.
- A result surprises them, becomes understandable, and suggests another experiment.
- They exploit feedback, cancellation, timing, or accumulation in an approach not dictated by the objectives.

## Weak or negative evidence

- They wire only the minimum path described by the UI and stop.
- They understand the system but feel no desire to manipulate it.
- Most time is spent fighting selection, wiring, deletion, or readability.
- Success comes from unexplained trial and error rather than a revised mental model.