Domain: Engineering — Geotechnical Engineering
Target concept: Simulated Experiment on Seismic Response Comparison between Soft and Hard Soil Layers

Video generation prompt: Two identical transparent containers, container A filled with soft clay and container B filled with dense gravel. The bottoms of both containers are fixed on the same vibration table. The vibration is activated, and the amplitude of the soil in container A and container B is observed.

Evaluation guide:
(i) Target concept: Soil amplification due to contrasting dynamic stiffness and damping between low-density cohesive soils and high-density granular soils under harmonic base excitation.
Minimum mechanism: Vibration energy transmitted identically to both containers; differential response arises solely from intrinsic mechanical properties (shear modulus G and damping ratio ζ) of the soil media; no external forces, water pressure changes, or container resonance involved.
(ii)Storyline: [Start] Static frame showing side-by-side labeled containers on fixed table → [Trigger] Table begins uniform horizontal oscillation (no delay between onset for A/B) → [Response Phase] Simultaneous but divergent motion: clay undergoes coherent lateral sway with surface waves; gravel exhibits high-frequency micro-displacements only at top layer → [Stabilization] Motion decays: clay continues damped oscillation; gravel halts instantly → [View constraint] Fixed frontal orthographic view; no camera motion; full containers always in frame; lighting reveals texture and transparency without glare.

Manual:
Experimental Procedure
1. Place two identical transparent containers side-by-side on a shared vibration table.
2. Fill container A with soft clay; fill container B with dense gravel.
3. Fix both containers to the table base.
4. Activate vibration table uniformly.
Observation of Experimental Phenomena
- Container A (clay) shows large-amplitude, slow, wave-like bulk motion with lateral bulging.
- Container B (gravel) shows small-amplitude, fast, localized grain jostling confined to surface layer.
Summary of Experimental Principles
Soft clay has low shear stiffness and high damping, amplifying seismic motion; dense gravel has high shear stiffness and low damping, restricting motion amplitude — demonstrating soil amplification effect in geotechnical earthquake engineering.

Prompt Grounding rubric:
level_1: Neither the vibration table nor the two transparent containers appear, no soft clay or dense gravel is visible in either container, and no oscillation of the table is shown.
level_2: The vibration table is visible but sitting motionless, and while two transparent containers are present, they are not placed together on it (for instance, only one sits on the table, or they sit far apart, or one is stacked on the other), and neither container's fill can be told apart from a generic soil-like material; no shaking has started.
level_3: Both transparent containers sit together on the same vibration table, each visibly holding a granular fill, and the table is shown oscillating; the fills are not yet visually distinguishable as clay versus gravel, but the overall configuration otherwise matches the setup described in the prompt.
level_4: Both containers sit together on the same vibration table; container A clearly holds a smooth, uniform, dull-brown cohesive material consistent with soft clay, while container B clearly holds coarse, angular, light-gray granular material consistent with dense gravel; the table is oscillating; both containers stay fixed to the table for the whole clip, and neither container is blocked from view or shown out of place.
level_5: Everything required at the 4-point level holds, and in addition the containers are legibly labeled 'A' and 'B' without the labels blocking the view of the soil, the clay looks fully saturated with no dry patches, and the gravel looks dry with its grains interlocked; the table's oscillation is steady and applies to both containers at once and at the same amplitude, and the camera never pans, zooms, or cuts away during the shaking.

Scientific and Causal Correctness rubric:
level_1: The two containers show no discernible difference in how much they move (both stay rigid, or both slosh around by the same amount), or the pattern is scientifically backwards, with the gravel visibly moving more than the clay.
level_2: The table shakes, but only one container visibly responds while the other stays completely still, or the two containers start moving at clearly different times instead of together, or both show nothing more than a faint surface ripple with no distinguishable difference between them.
level_3: Both containers respond as soon as the table starts shaking; the clay in container A sways with a slower, larger, wave-like motion that reaches down into the bulk of the material, while the gravel in container B shows a smaller, faster jostling of individual grains confined near the surface.
level_4: Everything required at the 3-point level holds, and in addition the clay shows a coherent lateral sway with visible bulging near the container walls and a surface wave that travels across it, while the gravel shows only rapid, small grain movements confined to roughly the top third of its depth, with no bulk deformation in either case; neither container shows mixing, liquefaction, or collapse.
level_5: Everything required at the 4-point level holds, and in addition the clay keeps swaying in a decaying, damped motion for at least a couple of cycles after the table stops, while the gravel stops moving almost the instant the table does; nothing physically implausible appears, such as splashing, dust clouds, grains sliding out of the container, or the containers tipping over.

Spatiotemporal Consistency rubric:
level_1: One of the two containers vanishes or is replaced mid-clip; the vibration table itself warps, bends, or fractures; the lighting flips abruptly between two different setups within the same continuous shot; or the containers' positions relative to each other change with no shaking motion to account for it.
level_2: One container shifts sideways or rotates with no physical cause tied to the shaking; the table's oscillation itself stutters, freezes for more than a moment, or jumps between two different phases of motion; the edges of a container or the background show visible ghosting or doubling; or there is a visible seam suggesting two separate shots were stitched together.
level_3: Both containers stay in the same place relative to each other and to the table for the whole clip; the shaking motion itself is continuous and smooth rather than jumpy; neither container clips through the other or through the table; no frame looks frozen or skipped.
level_4: Everything required at the 3-point level holds, and in addition the camera never pans, tilts, zooms, or drifts; both containers stay flush against the table surface without ever lifting or rocking on their own; and no reflection or glare on the transparent walls falsely suggests movement in a container that is actually still.
level_5: Everything required at the 4-point level holds, and in addition every motion in the clip is temporally coherent: no frame shows tearing, no blur is inconsistent with how fast something is actually moving, and the depth-of-field relationship between the containers and the background stays constant throughout, with nothing about the shot itself (as opposed to how the soils behave) breaking the illusion of one continuous recording.