diff --git a/HOW-IT-WAS-MADE.md b/HOW-IT-WAS-MADE.md
index 5323660..ea35bc7 100644
--- a/HOW-IT-WAS-MADE.md
+++ b/HOW-IT-WAS-MADE.md
@@ -10,11 +10,11 @@ That's the fate of most dissertations. Years of work, compressed into a PDF, fil
## The Realization
-In early 2026, I revisited my data with fresh eyes and modern tools. I found something the original analysis missed: an ecological fallacy hiding in the results. A correlation that looked real at the group level vanished within each condition. That was a genuine discovery, buried in an eight-year-old dataset.
+In early 2026, I went back to the data with newer statistical tools. The original analysis had missed an ecological fallacy in the results. A correlation that looked real across the whole sample vanished within each condition. A real finding, eight years late.
I wanted to share it in a way that did the finding justice. Not as another paper. Not as a slide deck. As something people could experience.
-Around the same time, I started using [Claude Code](https://claude.ai/code), Anthropic's AI coding tool. What I realized was that I didn't need to know how to build a website from scratch. I could describe what I wanted, and build it through conversation.
+Around the same time, I started using [Claude Code](https://claude.ai/code), Anthropic's AI coding tool. I didn't need to know how to build a website from scratch. I could describe what I wanted and build it through conversation.
## The Process
diff --git a/README.md b/README.md
index 9a12b3b..fc765e1 100644
--- a/README.md
+++ b/README.md
@@ -8,7 +8,7 @@ An interactive data story exploring VR, learning, and a surprising statistical f
-An interactive data story built from a 2018 PhD study (n=108) that tested whether VR headsets improve learning. The answer was surprising: the simulation matters, not the headset — VR and desktop produced identical outcomes (Cohen's d = 0.23) while both massively outperformed passive instruction (d > 2.4). A 2026 reanalysis uncovered an ecological fallacy hiding in the original results: a correlation that looked real at the group level vanished within each condition.
+The 2018 PhD study (n=108) asked whether VR headsets improve learning. They don't. VR and desktop produced identical outcomes (Cohen's d = 0.23); both crushed passive instruction (d > 2.4). What mattered was the simulation, not the display. A 2026 reanalysis added something the original paper missed: the presence-learning correlation is an ecological fallacy — real at the group level, gone within each condition.
[**View the Interactive Story**](https://savvides.github.io/dissertation/)
@@ -118,7 +118,7 @@ The full addendum with all citations is in [`dissertation.md`](dissertation.md#u
## 2026 Retrospective
-In 2026, I revisited this study with fresh eyes — red-teaming the methodology and reanalyzing the original data ([`data.csv`](data.csv)) using modern statistical tools. The core finding is rock-solid: interactive simulations produced massive learning gains over passive instruction (Cohen's d > 2.4). But the theoretical claims around *why* could be made much stronger. Key issues:
+In 2026, I went back to the original data ([`data.csv`](data.csv)) and red-teamed the methodology with newer statistical tools. The headline finding holds: interactive simulations crushed passive instruction (Cohen's d > 2.4). The theoretical story about *why* doesn't:
- **Confounded conditions** — The low immersion group received fundamentally different content (video/text vs. interactive simulation), confounding immersion with interactivity
- **Uncontrolled time on task** — VR group spent ~10 more minutes than control (25.9 vs. 16.2 min)
diff --git a/index.html b/index.html
index 191408e..d2c3687 100644
--- a/index.html
+++ b/index.html
@@ -128,8 +128,7 @@
How This Was Made
-
About Philippos
-
Philippos Savvides is an educational researcher with a PhD in Educational Technology from Arizona State University. His work focuses on how learners interact with simulations, virtual environments, and emerging interfaces.