Domain: Engineering — Geotechnical Engineering
Target concept: Simulation Test on the Effect of Cement Grouting for Seepage Prevention in Sandy Soil

Video generation prompt: Two funnels were used: Funnel A was filled with ordinary sand, and Funnel B was filled with sand reinforced with cement slurry. Equal amounts of red ink were poured into both funnels simultaneously, and the seepage of the red ink from Funnel A and Funnel B was observed and compared.

Evaluation guide:
(i) Target concept: Permeability reduction via pore occlusion by cementitious binder.
Minimum mechanism: Cement slurry must fully coat sand grains and bridge intergranular voids to form a low-permeability matrix, preventing advective flow of liquid dye under gravity.
(ii)Storyline: Frame 0–1: Static shot showing two labeled, side-by-side funnels filled with visibly distinct sand states (loose vs. cohesive). Frame 2–3: Identical red ink containers descend synchronously toward funnel openings. Frame 4–5: Ink contacts sand surfaces simultaneously. Frame 6–8: Ink percolates visibly in Funnel A (continuous red flow downward); ink remains arrested in Funnel B (no red emergence, no breakthrough). Frame 9–10: Sustained contrast confirmed. Funnel A outlet shows active red drip/stain; Funnel B outlet remains dry and unchanged. Perspective: Fixed frontal, eye-level view; full funnels in frame; no occlusion of outlets or sand columns.

Manual:
Experimental Procedure
1. Place two identical funnels side-by-side on a flat surface.
2. Fill Funnel A with dry, loose sand. Fill Funnel B with sand pre-mixed and compacted with cement slurry.
3. Simultaneously pour equal volumes of red ink into both funnels.
Observation of Experimental Phenomena
Red ink rapidly seeps through Funnel A and emerges from its bottom. Red ink does not seep through Funnel B — it remains pooled above the sand or slowly absorbs without emergence.
Summary of Experimental Principles
Cement grouting fills pore spaces in sandy soil, reducing permeability and inhibiting water (or dye) seepage — demonstrating its effectiveness for seepage prevention in geotechnical engineering.

Prompt Grounding rubric:
level_1: Neither funnel is shown, or only one funnel appears, or no red ink is used at all, or one or both funnels have no sand in them, or the two funnels are never shown together in the same shot.
level_2: Both funnels appear in the same shot, but something essential is missing: one funnel has no sand, red ink is poured into only one of the two funnels, the two pours happen at clearly different times, or nothing in the shot distinguishes which funnel holds plain sand and which holds the cement-treated sand.
level_3: Two funnels stand side by side, each visibly holding sand; red ink is poured into both in the same continuous action with no separation between the two pours; there is no reason to doubt which funnel is meant to be the untreated one and which is the cement-treated one.
level_4: Everything shown for a 3 holds, and in addition the sand in one funnel looks loose and dry with no visible moisture or coating, the sand in the other looks damp, clumped, or bound together as if mixed with cement slurry, and both funnels keep the same shape, size, and orientation for the whole sequence.
level_5: Everything shown for a 4 holds, and in addition the two ink pours are visually matched (similar container size, similar height above the funnel, and starting at essentially the same moment with no visible lag between the first drop entering one funnel and the first drop entering the other), and the loose-sand funnel and the cement-treated funnel keep a consistent left/right position relative to each other throughout, so which funnel is which stays clear without relying on any text painted on the funnels.

Scientific and Causal Correctness rubric:
level_1: Red ink behaves the same way in both funnels (it drips from both bottoms, is blocked in both, or drains faster from the cement-treated funnel than from the plain-sand one), or no ink ever reaches the outlet of either funnel.
level_2: Only one funnel shows a result, and it isn't a clean demonstration of the effect: ink seeps through the plain-sand funnel but the cement-treated funnel's outcome is ambiguous or unclear, ink emerges only from the cement-treated funnel while the plain-sand funnel shows nothing, ink begins dripping from both funnels with no visible difference in rate between them, or the ink spreads sideways across a sand surface instead of moving downward.
level_3: Red ink emerges continuously from the bottom of the plain-sand funnel while no ink emerges from the bottom of the cement-treated funnel, and this contrast holds for at least 2 seconds of continued viewing. The correct phenomenon (cement slurry blocking the seepage that plain sand allows) is shown.
level_4: Everything shown for a 3 holds, and in addition the ink moving through the plain-sand funnel stays fluid and red all the way down, the cement-treated funnel holds the ink above its sand surface with no red droplet, stain, or trace ever reaching its outlet, and neither funnel leaks ink from its walls or seams.
level_5: Everything shown for a 4 holds, and in addition the plain-sand funnel keeps draining ink at a steady, unimpeded rate for as long as it's shown, the cement-treated funnel's outlet stays completely dry for the entire visible duration and its sand column shows no cracking or sudden settling that would open a path for the ink, and no ink reaches that outlet by any indirect route, such as creeping along the inside of the funnel wall instead of through the sand.

Spatiotemporal Consistency rubric:
level_1: A funnel's position jumps between frames with no motion shown in between, a funnel's shape visibly warps (bulging, collapsing, or turning on its own), the red ink appears or disappears from one frame to the next instead of flowing continuously, the sand's texture flickers or changes pattern for no reason, or the lighting abruptly flips between bright and dark with no cause.
level_2: A smaller break still occurs: a funnel shifts sideways or up and down between frames with no visible motion connecting the two positions, the ink stream breaks into disconnected chunks wider than the stream itself, the shadow cast by a funnel or a hand swings to a new direction with no change in the light source, or a sand surface drops in level with no ink having entered to explain why.
level_3: Neither funnel jumps position or comes apart; both stay fixed relative to the edges of the frame; red ink pours into each funnel as one continuous stream; the sand surfaces stay still except for the settling that naturally follows the ink landing on them; and the shadows in the scene keep a steady direction and brightness across the sequence.
level_4: Everything shown for a 3 holds, and in addition each ink stream keeps a steady thickness and path from the pour point down to the sand, neither funnel's outline flickers or skips between frames, and the sand's grain pattern in each funnel stays visually stable rather than shimmering or changing look.
level_5: Everything shown for a 4 holds, and in addition the ink enters each funnel smoothly, without splashing or turbulent breakup, the two funnels keep the same scale and alignment relative to each other with no perspective shift between them, and neither the ink's descent nor the sand surface shows any repeated or frozen-looking frames.