Jill · model archive · evidence boundary

Opal structural-color study

This page preserves the intent of an exploratory FCC/Bragg visualization without turning a conditional optical model into a universal account of natural opal. It is a source-archive boundary, not gem identification or material advice.

Idealized lattice modelChosen FCC, optical, and angle assumptions
ArchivedUniversal formation and color claims removed
Reopen with receiptsSpecimen boundary, sourced inputs, and validated calculations

Archive status map: the structural-color model remains conditional and cannot stand in for evidence about a particular natural opal.

Interactive claim surface paused The former narrative mixed an idealized lattice, chosen optical inputs, browser calculations, and broad claims about formation and color. Those layers lacked the evidence needed for a public empirical story, so the executable narrative and its stale injectors have been removed.

What remains supported

A conditional mathematical model A Bragg-style calculation can explore reflected wavelength after lattice geometry, effective refractive index, angle convention, and material assumptions are supplied. It does not show that a particular stone has those inputs.

Structural source inventory The public proof graph inventories pinned Lean source declarations. Parser counts and absence of lexical markers are structural observations, not a compiler or kernel receipt.

Narrow receipt boundary Jill's manifest binds two named source theorems with exact identities. Neither receipt certifies the retired browser visualizations, a natural-opal specimen, or the page-wide science narrative.

What is not claimed

No claim that natural opal consists of one ideal close-packed lattice or forms by one automatic process.
No claim that one equation explains every observed color, viewing-angle response, body tone, transparency, or disorder regime.
No claim that a browser output is a calibrated measurement, mineral identification, treatment assessment, or provenance result.
No claim that the archived interactive code was Lean-extracted or verified end to end.

Reopening criteria

A future interactive edition needs a clearly specified specimen/model boundary, sourced and uncertainty-bearing material inputs, validated angle conventions, reproducible calculations, exact theorem-to-claim bindings, and tests that keep rendered text and canvases inside those limits.

Jill source overview Read the evidence boundary

Prior full narrative retained in Git object 6d8788dd99e0f0fb5ae307978bc242acc9974956. That identifier preserves history; it is not a verification receipt.