# NetPhysics crystal tools 0.9.0

Prepared 21 October 2026. These tools distinguish published structural evidence from conceptual illustrations, synthetic calculations and user-supplied data.

## Reproduce calculations

Extract crystal-source.zip into a working folder. Install Node.js (tested with v24). Run:

    node check-engine.cjs

This produces verification.json. The 16 check groups cover analytic uniform, series and parallel conduction, current and energy balance, potential bounds, monotonicity, known map geometry, CSV rejection, specimen weighting, data-split leakage and prediction uncertainty. These checks do not validate a material theory. The included grid study demonstrates remaining discretization sensitivity.

## Reproduce media

Install ffmpeg and the Node package sharp (tested with 0.35.5). With these available, run:

    npm install sharp
    node render-crystal-media.cjs

The renderer creates SVG artwork, posters and a 48-second 1280×720 H.264 silent film at 24 fps. It also creates four review frames in crystal-research/. Published map PNGs are inputs, not generated scientific data. Source figure credit and transformations are in source-provenance.json.

## Browser code

engine.js contains pure calculation and CSV functions, available as NPCrystal in a browser or module.exports under Node. scene.js constructs the conceptual SVG. app.js connects the page controls; crystal.css provides responsive layout. The full deploy ZIP supplies their PHP page markup. Files remain local to the browser during tool calculations; existing site analytics remains enabled.

## Evidence limits

Boundary lab solves ordinary conduction for a positive scalar conductivity. It contains no superconductivity, quantum coherence or calibrated LESCO material law. Map analysis operates on numeric grids and reports threshold-dependent results, not crystal-phase identification. Prediction scoring cannot verify prior prediction freezing, independent sampling, measurement calibration or model-selection history.

The synthetic prediction example intentionally favors the conventional model over the candidate. An unfavorable result is meaningful and should remain visible.

## Published figure credit

Evie Ladbrook, Jon P. Wright and Mark S. Senn, Giant Domain Walls and Intrinsic Heterogeneity in 214 Cuprate Superconductors, Physical Review Letters 137, 126504 (2026). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/r62x-kt5j . CC BY 4.0: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ . Figure 2 extracted from published PDF page 4; temperature images are crops of panel (a), with colors and scale bars retained. No endorsement is implied.

The DataCite metadata record is included. Raw ESRF file access is not confirmed; no raw data have been reprocessed.