Richard Feynman became famous not only for research in quantum electrodynamics but for the way he attacked confusion. His style was to strip a problem down, state what was known, identify what was not understood and test whether an explanation actually connected to observable facts.
Simple is not the same as shallow
A useful explanation removes unnecessary jargon, but it does not erase the hard parts. If a concept depends on probability, fields, energy conservation or an approximation, the explanation should say so. The goal is to make the structure visible without pretending every detail is easy.
Use explanation as a test
Try describing a concept in ordinary language. Where do you start waving your hands? Which word are you using without being able to define it? That gap is often the exact place where more study is needed. Then return to the equations, diagrams or measurements and rebuild the explanation.
For the ProStackAI lab
This is a useful rule for every project on this site: if we claim a device stores energy, we should be able to say where the energy enters, where it is stored, how it leaves and what losses occur. If we cannot yet explain one of those steps, that becomes the next experiment rather than a reason to invent an answer.