PTD CAPITAL LLC / RESEARCH PROTOCOLTOTAL LEARNING evaluation protocol
PTD-ARC-2026-TOTAL-02 · 16 October 2026 · Version 1.0
Prepared by Elias Corven · Open · Proposed protocol
Question
The current alpha lets a visitor alter the pace and density of a knowledge sequence comprising text, culture, science, languages, geography and history. This protocol asks which parts of the experience remain legible and controllable as the sequence becomes denser. It also separates successful software delivery from evidence of comprehension.
No participant study is reported here. The protocol is a working specification for a later review. Comparative learning claims require a separate study with a defined task, comparison condition, recruitment method and analysis plan. An item rendered on screen is not recorded as an item learned.
Material and conditions
Select one bounded set of source material with verified attributions and an agreed set of questions. Keep the content identical across presentation conditions. Freeze the alpha version, source manifest, sequence order and device configuration. Document the initial state, input events and actual elapsed time so that a session can be replayed.
The proposed first comparison is between a readable fixed sequence and a participant-controlled sequence using the same material. The evaluator should record changes in density and pace without interpreting those changes as preference or understanding on their own. Any interpretation requires the participant's response and the relevant task result.
Separate evidence streams
| Evidence | What it answers | What it does not establish |
|---|
| Render and timing log | Was the intended material displayed in the intended order? | Whether it was noticed, read or understood |
| Immediate explanation | Can the participant explain a selected relationship after the session? | Durable retention |
| Delayed question | What can be recalled at the specified later interval? | Transfer to every real-world task |
| Application task | Can the participant use the material in a defined new example? | A general change in intelligence or learning speed |
| Usability account | Could the participant pause, resume, locate sources and control presentation? | Learning efficacy |
Session procedure
Before the session, explain the controls and verify that the participant can stop the presentation. Use a short practice item that does not appear in the assessed material. Record the selected device and presentation settings. The participant should be able to reduce motion or audio density without losing access to the underlying content.
After the sequence, ask for an explanation in the participant's own words and a small application task. Keep scoring criteria fixed before reviewing answers. Schedule any delayed assessment in advance. An interrupted session remains in the record with its reason and completed portion; it is not silently removed to improve the apparent result.
Technical acceptance
The shared historical clock must govern the chronology independently of the rate at which names appear. Tests must cover the transition from 1 BCE to 1 CE, pause and resume, window resize, background-tab behaviour and restart. Artwork titles and source links should remain recoverable even when a dense visual state cannot display them at normal reading size.
A technical failure is classified before interpretation: absent material, wrong order, timing mismatch, unreadable control or lost source identity. An evaluation run affected by such a failure cannot be treated as an ordinary presentation condition.
Review record
The resulting report should state the material, version, conditions, completed sessions, exclusions and unresolved issues. It should include examples of what participants could and could not explain. Any proposed change to the interface must identify the observation that prompted it. Neura1, the proposed hardware direction, remains outside this software-alpha protocol.