0
Explaining a hard concept at three different levels of depth
Explain concept at three distinct levels, each genuinely calibrated to that audience, not the same explanation with words swapped.
Level 1: to a curious young_age-year-old with no relevant background, using only concrete, physical analogies they'd actually understand, no jargon at all, even simplified jargon.
Level 2: to a intermediate_audience (has general education but no specific background in this field), can use some field terminology if you define it immediately, analogies can be more abstract.
Level 3: to someone with expert_audience_background, full technical precision expected, no analogy needed unless it adds genuine insight even to an expert, focus on the actual mechanism and any subtlety or common misconception even experts sometimes get wrong.
After all three, tell me: what's the one thing that's technically true in Level 3 but that Level 1's analogy actually gets slightly wrong or oversimplifies in a way that would need to be unlearned later? Name it explicitly so I know what simplification debt I'm taking on by using the Level 1 version.