Domain: Engineering — Structural Engineering
Target concept: Solid masonry walls exhibit better shear performance.

Video generation prompt: Place two cube-shaped bricks of equal volume side by side on a table, each brick bonded or clamped at its base to the table so it cannot slide, with the left one being a solid brick and the right one a hollow brick. Apply the same magnitude of horizontal shear load to the inner face of each brick simultaneously, gradually increasing the shear load until deformation or failure occurs in the bricks.

Evaluation guide:
(i) Target concept: Shear resistance disparity between solid and hollow masonry under identical lateral loading.
Minimum mechanism: Both bricks are anchored at their base to the table (bonded or clamped) so that the applied lateral force at each brick's inner face produces internal shear strain rather than the brick sliding or toppling as a rigid body; the hollow brick has thin load-bearing walls enclosing an empty core, giving it a lower shear-resisting cross-section and higher susceptibility to buckling and localized wall failure; the solid brick has a homogeneous, continuous cross-section enabling more uniform shear stress distribution and higher ultimate strength.
(ii)Storyline: Frame 1–2: Static shot showing two aligned cube bricks on the table, each visibly anchored at its base (clamp, bracket, or bonding line), and visually distinct (solid vs. hollow via texture/section cue). Frame 3–4: Horizontal push tool/hand enters frame and makes simultaneous bilateral contact at each brick's inner face. Frame 5–7: Progressive lateral deflection begins. Hollow brick visibly bends inward at mid-height, walls buckle; solid brick shows minimal, uniform strain. Frame 8–9: Hollow brick develops cracks at wall junctions or collapses cavity; solid brick remains intact with only fine surface fissures. Frame 10: Final state holds contrast. Hollow brick deformed/failing, solid brick structurally preserved. Perspective: Fixed frontal or 3/4 view, full-brick visibility, no occlusion of the contact zone, the base anchors, or the mid-height region.

Manual:
Experimental Procedure
1. Place two identical cube-shaped bricks side by side on a flat table, each bonded or clamped at its base to the table (or to a fixed support frame) so that neither brick can slide or topple: left brick solid, right brick hollow.
2. Apply identical horizontal push force simultaneously to the inner (facing) vertical surface of each brick, directed away from the other brick, so that each fixed-base brick undergoes internal shear deformation rather than sliding across the table.
3. Increase the force gradually until visible deformation or failure occurs.
Observation of Experimental Phenomena
Hollow brick shows greater lateral deflection, earlier cracking, and collapse of cavity walls; solid brick resists longer with slower, more uniform shear strain and delayed macroscopic failure.
Summary of Experimental Principles
Solid masonry walls exhibit better shear performance because their continuous cross-section gives a greater net shear-resisting area and an unbroken load path, with no stress-concentrating voids to trigger early local failure.

Prompt Grounding rubric:
level_1: No cube-shaped bricks appear at all; or the two bricks are not placed side by side on a table; or only one brick is shown; or the two bricks look nothing alike in size (equal-volume framing violated); or no horizontal push is shown reaching either brick; or the two pushes are clearly not simultaneous (e.g., the left brick is pushed first, then the right brick only after a delay).
level_2: Two brick-like objects sit adjacent on the table, but at least one requirement fails: one is not cube-shaped (e.g., a slab, cylinder, or irregular block), the two are not similar in apparent size, one is not resting stably and anchored at its base (e.g., it is loose, tilted, or floating), or the push reaches only one of the two bricks.
level_3: Two cube-shaped bricks of comparable size sit side by side on a flat table, each visibly anchored at its base (for example a clamp, bracket, or bonding line at the brick-table junction) so that it cannot freely slide; a single continuous horizontal push (hand, rod, or plate) contacts the inner facing surface of both bricks at the same time; no other element called for in the setup is missing.
level_4: Both bricks sit anchored side by side and are pushed simultaneously as described above, and in addition the push is clearly horizontal, parallel to the tabletop; each brick's base stays visibly anchored in place through the initial contact, with no premature sliding or lifting before any deformation begins; both bricks remain fully within the frame for the whole push.
level_5: Both bricks are anchored, aligned, and pushed simultaneously and horizontally as described above, and in addition the two bricks share the same front-to-back depth and base alignment, so the pair reads as one aligned row; the push on each brick is directed away from the other brick (that is, each brick's own inner, facing surface is pushed outward), so the two bricks are driven apart from each other rather than into or through each other; no extraneous object blocks the view of either brick or the contact region for the entire sequence.

Scientific and Causal Correctness rubric:
level_1: Neither brick shows any deformation or damage; or both bricks deform and fail in an identical way (same amount, same timing, same mode) despite one being solid and the other hollow; or a brick deforms before any push visibly reaches it; or the hollow brick stays perfectly rigid while the solid one bends; or the solid brick fractures while the hollow one shows no change; or either brick appears to slide as a rigid block across the table rather than straining internally.
level_2: At least one brick visibly deforms, but the pattern contradicts basic shear behavior: for example the hollow brick bulges outward while the solid one compresses inward, the hollow brick snaps cleanly while the solid one instead bulges, the visible bending starts at the top or bottom edge rather than around the brick's mid-height, or a brick fails before any push is visibly applied to it.
level_3: Both bricks visibly deform once pushed, with the hollow brick showing a larger sideways bulge or earlier visible cracking/crumbling than the solid brick, or the solid brick keeping its cube shape intact for longer while showing a slower build-up of distortion; the deformation in both bricks reads as shear-type bending and cracking rather than the whole brick sliding across the table or toppling over.
level_4: The hollow-versus-solid contrast plays out as described above, and in addition the visible deformation or cracking is concentrated around the mid-height of each brick rather than just at a corner or top edge, with no rotation or tipping unrelated to the shearing itself; the hollow brick's cavity walls visibly buckle or cave in, while the solid brick instead shows fine, spread-out cracking or bending with no internal cavity to collapse.
level_5: The contrast unfolds as described above, and in addition it widens steadily and predictably as the push increases: the hollow brick's sideways bulge grows faster, and it visibly cracks, crumbles, or loses its cube shape before the solid brick shows any comparable bulge or crack; the solid brick keeps its full cross-section connected all the way up to its own eventual failure, with no early local collapse or internal gap forming inside it.

Spatiotemporal Consistency rubric:
level_1: One or both bricks vanish and reappear between frames; the table surface abruptly warps, rotates, or changes texture; the lighting jumps suddenly, such as a shadow disappearing and returning pointing a different way with no cause shown; a brick's cube shape flickers into a different shape from one frame to the next.
level_2: At least one clear spatiotemporal flaw appears: a brick's edge tears or ghosts while it moves, the push begins before the pushing hand or tool has entered the frame, the table's perspective is inconsistent (its front edge recedes while its back edge advances), or the shadow cast by the pushing hand does not track the hand's actual position from frame to frame.
level_3: Neither brick disappears, teleports, or breaks apart unexpectedly; each brick stays continuously visible and in place apart from the shear deformation itself; all motion (the push, the bending, the cracking) looks smooth and physically plausible; the pushing hand or tool keeps a consistent size and orientation relative to the bricks across frames; the camera viewpoint stays fixed, with no zoom, pan, or roll.
level_4: The scene holds together as described above, and in addition each brick's surface keeps a consistent texture and sheen with no sudden switch between glossy and matte, the contact between the pushing tool and the brick shows continuous pressure with no gap or interpenetration, and the shadow cast by the pushing hand or tool on the table moves coherently with the hand's own motion.
level_5: The scene holds together as described above, and in addition no motion blur is heavy enough to hide either brick's edges or the contact point, no frame repeats or stutters so every frame shows a newly progressed state, the two bricks keep the same relative position and scale on screen throughout with no parallax drift between them, and the ambient lighting keeps a steady intensity and direction with no sudden bright glints or shifts in shading.