/* ─────────────────────────────────────────────
   Reading practice — Advanced: B2, C1, C2
   Extends window.READING_DATA
   ───────────────────────────────────────────── */

window.READING_DATA = (window.READING_DATA || []).concat([

  /* ─── B2 · ENGINEERING FAILURE ─── */
  {
    id: 'normalization-of-deviance', level: 'B2', icon: '🚀', minutes: 6,
    kind: { en: 'Article', ar: 'مقال', tr: 'Makale' },
    title: { en: 'When Warning Signs Become Normal', ar: 'عندما تصبح إشارات التحذير أمراً عادياً', tr: 'Uyarı İşaretleri Normalleştiğinde' },
    summary: {
      en: 'The Challenger disaster taught engineering a hard lesson about how organizations slowly learn to accept risk.',
      ar: 'علّمت كارثة تشالنجر الهندسة درساً قاسياً حول كيف تتعلم المؤسسات ببطء قبول المخاطر.',
      tr: 'Challenger felaketi, kurumların riski yavaş yavaş kabullenmeyi nasıl öğrendiğine dair mühendisliğe zor bir ders verdi.',
    },
    figure: {
      caption: { en: 'Engineers review O-ring data the night before a launch.', ar: 'مهندسون يراجعون بيانات الحلقات المطاطية ليلة ما قبل الإطلاق.', tr: 'Mühendisler fırlatmadan önceki gece O-ring verilerini inceliyor.' },
      prompt: 'A tense 1980s conference room at night: engineers around a table covered with charts and printed data, a telephone in the center, serious expressions.',
    },
    body: [
      'On a cold January morning in 1986, the space shuttle Challenger broke apart 73 seconds after launch, killing all seven crew members. The technical cause was quickly identified: rubber seals called O-rings, which failed in the unusually cold weather. But the deeper cause took longer to understand — and it had nothing to do with rubber.',
      'The investigation revealed something [[unsettling]]: engineers had known about the O-ring problem for years. On previous flights, the seals had shown damage — evidence that they were not working as designed. Each time, the damage was analyzed, discussed, and ultimately [[tolerated]]. The flights had succeeded, after all. Gradually, what was originally defined as an unacceptable [[anomaly]] became reclassified as an acceptable risk.',
      'The sociologist Diane Vaughan later gave this pattern a name: the *normalization of deviance*. Her definition is worth memorizing: people within an organization become so accustomed to a deviant behavior that they no longer consider it deviant, despite the fact that it far exceeds their own rules for safety. In plain terms: if you break a rule repeatedly and nothing bad happens, breaking the rule starts to feel normal.',
      'What makes this pattern so dangerous is that it does not feel like recklessness from the inside. Each individual decision seemed [[defensible]]: the data was ambiguous, schedules were pressing, and previous flights had survived. No single person decided to accept a fatal risk. Instead, dozens of small, reasonable-seeming compromises accumulated into a catastrophe.',
      'The night before the launch, engineers at the contractor Morton Thiokol argued against flying in the cold, but they were asked to *prove* the shuttle was unsafe — a reversal of the normal burden of proof, which requires proving that a system IS safe. Under pressure, management [[overruled]] the engineers. That reversal — "prove it will fail" instead of "prove it is safe" — is now taught in engineering ethics courses worldwide.',
      'The lesson extends far beyond aerospace. Every workplace has its small deviances: the safety guard removed "just for this job," the code deployed without review "just this once," the inspection skipped because the last ten found nothing. The Challenger story asks every engineer an uncomfortable question: what has quietly become normal in YOUR work that, written down on paper, would look like a warning sign?',
    ],
    vocab: {
      'unsettling':  { pos: 'adjective', def: 'making you feel anxious or uncomfortable', ex: 'The report contained some unsettling findings.' },
      'tolerated':   { pos: 'verb', def: 'accepted something unpleasant without acting against it', ex: 'The defect was tolerated for years.' },
      'anomaly':     { pos: 'noun', def: 'something that deviates from what is expected or normal', ex: 'The sensor recorded an anomaly in the data.' },
      'defensible':  { pos: 'adjective', def: 'able to be justified with reasons', ex: 'Each decision seemed defensible at the time.' },
      'overruled':   { pos: 'verb', def: 'rejected a decision or recommendation using higher authority', ex: 'Management overruled the engineers\u2019 objection.' },
    },
    questions: [
      { type:'mcq', q:'What was the deeper cause of the disaster, beyond the O-rings?',
        options:['Bad weather forecasting','The gradual normalization of a known problem','A single engineer\u2019s mistake','Poor rocket fuel'], a:1,
        explainEn:'Known O-ring damage was gradually reclassified from anomaly to acceptable risk.', explainAr:'أُعيد تصنيف عيب معروف تدريجياً من شذوذ إلى خطر مقبول.' },
      { type:'mcq', q:'What is the "normalization of deviance"?',
        options:['Making rules stricter over time','Becoming so used to rule-breaking that it no longer feels wrong','Testing systems until they fail','Normalizing data in statistics'], a:1,
        explainEn:'Repeated deviance with no consequences starts to feel normal.', explainAr:'الانحراف المتكرر دون عواقب يبدأ يبدو طبيعياً.' },
      { type:'mcq', q:'What reversal happened the night before launch?',
        options:['Engineers were asked to prove the shuttle was UNSAFE','The launch was moved earlier','The O-rings were replaced','The weather forecast changed'], a:0,
        explainEn:'The burden of proof was reversed: "prove it will fail" instead of "prove it is safe."', explainAr:'انعكس عبء الإثبات: "أثبت أنه سيفشل" بدل "أثبت أنه آمن".' },
      { type:'mcq', q:'Why is the pattern hard to see from inside an organization?',
        options:['It is kept secret','Each small compromise seems reasonable at the time','Only managers can see it','The data is always wrong'], a:1,
        explainEn:'No single decision looks reckless; small defensible compromises accumulate.', explainAr:'لا قرار منفرد يبدو متهوراً؛ التنازلات الصغيرة تتراكم.' },
      { type:'fill', q:'Something that deviates from the expected is an ___.', a:'anomaly',
        explainEn:'O-ring damage was an anomaly that became "normal."', explainAr:'anomaly تعني شذوذاً.' },
      { type:'fill', q:'When higher authority rejects a recommendation, it is ___. (past tense)', a:'overruled',
        explainEn:'Management overruled the engineers.', explainAr:'overruled تعني نُقض قرارهم.' },
    ],
  },

  /* ─── B2 · WORKPLACE / CULTURE ─── */
  {
    id: 'disagree-across-cultures', level: 'B2', icon: '🌍', minutes: 5,
    kind: { en: 'Article', ar: 'مقال', tr: 'Makale' },
    title: { en: 'How to Disagree in Five Countries', ar: 'كيف تعترض في خمس دول', tr: 'Beş Ülkede Nasıl İtiraz Edilir' },
    summary: {
      en: 'A German "no" and a Japanese "maybe" can mean the same thing. Working globally means learning to hear the difference.',
      ar: '"لا" الألمانية و"ربما" اليابانية قد تعنيان الشيء نفسه. العمل عالمياً يعني تعلم سماع الفرق.',
      tr: 'Almanca bir "hayır" ile Japonca bir "belki" aynı anlama gelebilir. Küresel çalışmak, farkı duymayı öğrenmek demektir.',
    },
    figure: {
      caption: { en: 'A video call connects team members across continents.', ar: 'مكالمة فيديو تجمع أعضاء فريق عبر القارات.', tr: 'Bir video görüşmesi kıtalar arası ekip üyelerini birbirine bağlıyor.' },
      prompt: 'A laptop screen showing a video call grid with five professionals of different backgrounds, sticky notes and a world-clock row beside the laptop.',
    },
    body: [
      'An engineer from Frankfurt presents a proposal to an international team. Her Dutch colleague says, "I see three problems with this design." Her Japanese colleague says, "This is very interesting. Perhaps we could also consider some alternatives." Her British colleague says, "That\u2019s certainly a bold approach." Here is the uncomfortable truth: all three may be expressing the same level of [[disagreement]].',
      'Researchers who study cross-cultural communication describe cultures along a spectrum of directness. In Germany and the Netherlands, open disagreement is generally seen as honest and professional — [[critiquing]] an idea is a way of taking it seriously, and is usually not personal. A meeting without pushback can even feel like a meeting where nobody cared.',
      'In Japan, and in much of East Asia, [[harmony]] in the group carries enormous weight. Disagreement is expressed — but often indirectly: through hesitation, through questions, through praise followed by a gentle "however." A phrase like "this could be somewhat difficult" may be a firm no. Saying "no" directly, especially to a senior person in front of others, risks causing embarrassment for everyone.',
      'Arab business culture often values relationship before transaction. Disagreement is possible — and Gulf negotiators can be famously tough — but it typically flows through personal trust built over shared meals and long conversation. Publicly [[contradicting]] a partner you barely know, before any relationship exists, can close doors that stay closed.',
      'The British occupy a famously confusing middle ground: polite phrases carry hidden weights. "Interesting" may mean *I disagree*; "I hear what you say" may mean *the discussion is over*; and "with the greatest respect" often signals that very little respect is coming. Foreign colleagues who take these phrases [[literally]] leave meetings believing everyone agreed.',
      'There is no "correct" style — each system works smoothly for the people inside it. Problems arise only at the boundaries, when a Dutch "three problems" lands on ears expecting a Japanese "perhaps." The practical skill for a global engineer is not to copy any one style, but to *calibrate*: know your own default, learn your counterpart\u2019s, and when in doubt, ask privately. Clear communication is not about volume — it is about knowing what your listener will actually hear.',
    ],
    vocab: {
      'disagreement':  { pos: 'noun', def: 'a difference of opinion', ex: 'There was disagreement about the schedule.' },
      'critiquing':    { pos: 'verb', def: 'evaluating something critically and in detail', ex: 'Critiquing a design is part of the review.' },
      'harmony':       { pos: 'noun', def: 'a state of peaceful agreement within a group', ex: 'The team values harmony over open conflict.' },
      'contradicting': { pos: 'verb', def: 'saying the opposite of what someone else said', ex: 'He avoided contradicting his manager in public.' },
      'literally':     { pos: 'adverb', def: 'taking words in their exact, basic meaning', ex: 'Do not take that phrase literally.' },
    },
    questions: [
      { type:'mcq', q:'What is the article\u2019s "uncomfortable truth"?',
        options:['Some cultures never disagree','Very different phrases can carry the same level of disagreement','Engineers argue too much','Video calls cause confusion'], a:1,
        explainEn:'All three colleagues may be expressing the same disagreement differently.', explainAr:'قد يعبّر الثلاثة عن الاعتراض نفسه بطرق مختلفة.' },
      { type:'mcq', q:'In German/Dutch professional culture, open critique usually means:',
        options:['Personal attack','Taking the idea seriously','The meeting failed','Disrespect to seniors'], a:1,
        explainEn:'Critiquing an idea is a way of taking it seriously.', explainAr:'نقد الفكرة طريقة لأخذها على محمل الجد.' },
      { type:'mcq', q:'What might "this could be somewhat difficult" mean in Japan?',
        options:['A firm no','Enthusiastic yes','A request for money','Nothing at all'], a:0,
        explainEn:'Indirect phrases like this may be a firm no.', explainAr:'قد تكون هذه العبارة غير المباشرة رفضاً قاطعاً.' },
      { type:'mcq', q:'What is the recommended skill for global engineers?',
        options:['Always be direct','Always be indirect','Calibrate: know your default, learn theirs, ask privately when unsure','Avoid international meetings'], a:2,
        explainEn:'Not copying one style, but calibrating to the listener.', explainAr:'ليس تقليد أسلوب واحد بل المعايرة حسب المستمع.' },
      { type:'fill', q:'A peaceful state of agreement in a group is ___.', a:'harmony',
        explainEn:'Group harmony carries enormous weight.', explainAr:'harmony تعني الانسجام.' },
      { type:'fill', q:'Taking words in their exact basic meaning is taking them ___.', a:'literally',
        explainEn:'Foreign colleagues who take the phrases literally get confused.', explainAr:'literally تعني حرفياً.' },
    ],
  },

  /* ─── C1 · TECHNOLOGY / SOCIETY ─── */
  {
    id: 'automation-paradox', level: 'C1', icon: '🤖', minutes: 6,
    kind: { en: 'Article', ar: 'مقال', tr: 'Makale' },
    title: { en: 'The Automation Paradox', ar: 'مفارقة الأتمتة', tr: 'Otomasyon Paradoksu' },
    summary: {
      en: 'The better our automatic systems become, the worse we get at taking over when they fail.',
      ar: 'كلما تحسنت أنظمتنا الآلية، أصبحنا أسوأ في تولي زمام الأمور عندما تفشل.',
      tr: 'Otomatik sistemlerimiz ne kadar iyileşirse, onlar başarısız olduğunda devralmakta o kadar kötüleşiyoruz.',
    },
    figure: {
      caption: { en: 'A pilot monitors autopilot systems on a long night flight.', ar: 'طيار يراقب أنظمة الطيار الآلي في رحلة ليلية طويلة.', tr: 'Bir pilot uzun bir gece uçuşunda otopilot sistemlerini izliyor.' },
      prompt: 'A modern airliner cockpit at night, soft instrument glow, two pilots monitoring screens rather than flying manually, stars visible through the windshield.',
    },
    body: [
      'In 2009, an Air France flight from Rio to Paris crashed into the Atlantic after its autopilot disconnected in a storm. The subsequent investigation found that the aircraft itself remained perfectly flyable; ice had temporarily blocked its speed sensors, nothing more. What proved fatal was the crew\u2019s response: startled, confused by contradictory alarms in the middle of the night, the pilots made control inputs that [[aggravated]] the situation until recovery became impossible. Investigators kept returning to one deeply uncomfortable question: had automation made the pilots *less* capable of flying?',
      'This is the automation paradox, and it appears wherever machines take over human tasks. Automation handles the routine work so reliably that human operators rarely practice their [[underlying]] skills. Those skills quietly atrophy — until the rare moment when the automation gives up, usually in precisely the complex, ambiguous conditions it was not designed to handle. At that moment, the system hands control back to a human who is out of practice, has little situational awareness, and must perform at their best within seconds. We remove humans from the easy ninety-nine percent and then demand perfection in the hardest one percent.',
      'The phenomenon extends well beyond aviation. Doctors who rely on diagnostic software have been shown, in some studies, to detect fewer anomalies unaided than colleagues who read scans manually. Drivers using advanced assistance systems [[disengage]] attention precisely when monitoring matters most. Navigation apps have produced a generation that can follow a blue line flawlessly yet cannot reconstruct the route home without it. In each case the technology works as designed; it is the human-machine *partnership* that fails.',
      'Crucially, the paradox is not an argument against automation, which has made flying, driving, and medicine dramatically safer overall. Rather, it reframes the engineering question. The naive goal — automate everything possible, leave the human as a passive monitor — produces the worst of both worlds, because humans are [[demonstrably]] terrible at passive monitoring. Attention drifts within minutes when there is nothing to do. The better goal is to keep the human meaningfully engaged: systems that share tasks rather than seize them, that degrade gracefully rather than disconnect abruptly, and that communicate their own confidence — and their confusion — honestly.',
      'The aviation industry, having learned from tragedy, now mandates regular manual-flying practice and trains crews specifically for automation surprises. Other industries adopting AI at speed — including software engineering itself — have barely begun asking the question. As tools grow more capable of writing our code, drafting our reports, and making our decisions, the automation paradox quietly [[looms]] over every profession: what happens to the skills we stop using? The engineers who thrive will likely be those who treat automation the way good pilots treat the autopilot — as a powerful colleague to be supervised, not an oracle to be obeyed.',
    ],
    vocab: {
      'aggravated':    { pos: 'verb', def: 'made a bad situation worse', ex: 'The wrong inputs aggravated the stall.' },
      'underlying':    { pos: 'adjective', def: 'existing beneath the surface; fundamental', ex: 'Automation hides the underlying skill.' },
      'disengage':     { pos: 'verb', def: 'to withdraw attention or involvement', ex: 'Drivers disengage when the car steers itself.' },
      'demonstrably':  { pos: 'adverb', def: 'in a way that can be shown or proved', ex: 'Humans are demonstrably poor at passive monitoring.' },
      'looms':         { pos: 'verb', def: 'appears as a large, threatening possibility', ex: 'The question looms over every profession.' },
    },
    questions: [
      { type:'mcq', q:'What actually made the Air France accident fatal?',
        options:['The aircraft became unflyable','The crew\u2019s confused response after the autopilot disconnected','A fire on board','Running out of fuel'], a:1,
        explainEn:'The aircraft was flyable; the startled crew\u2019s inputs aggravated the situation.', explainAr:'كانت الطائرة صالحة للطيران؛ استجابة الطاقم المرتبكة فاقمت الوضع.' },
      { type:'mcq', q:'What is the automation paradox?',
        options:['Automation is too expensive','Better automation erodes the human skills needed when it fails','Robots refuse to work','Automation always causes crashes'], a:1,
        explainEn:'Reliable automation removes practice, so skills atrophy until the rare handover.', explainAr:'الأتمتة الموثوقة تُفقد المهارات بالممارسة حتى لحظة التسليم النادرة.' },
      { type:'mcq', q:'Why is "human as passive monitor" a bad design?',
        options:['Humans are demonstrably bad at passive monitoring; attention drifts','Monitors are expensive','Humans prefer manual work','It requires two people'], a:0,
        explainEn:'Attention drifts within minutes when there is nothing to do.', explainAr:'ينجرف الانتباه خلال دقائق حين لا يوجد ما يُفعل.' },
      { type:'mcq', q:'What design goal does the article recommend instead?',
        options:['Automate everything','Remove automation','Keep humans meaningfully engaged; degrade gracefully; communicate confidence','Add more alarms'], a:2,
        explainEn:'Share tasks, degrade gracefully, communicate honestly.', explainAr:'مشاركة المهام والتدهور السلس والتواصل الصادق.' },
      { type:'fill', q:'To withdraw attention or involvement is to ___.', a:'disengage',
        explainEn:'Drivers disengage attention when assistance systems drive.', explainAr:'disengage تعني سحب الانتباه.' },
      { type:'fill', q:'Made a bad situation worse: ___. (past tense)', a:'aggravated',
        explainEn:'The control inputs aggravated the situation.', explainAr:'aggravated تعني فاقم.' },
    ],
  },

  /* ─── C1 · SCIENCE / HISTORY ─── */
  {
    id: 'measurement-history', level: 'C1', icon: '📏', minutes: 6,
    kind: { en: 'Article', ar: 'مقال', tr: 'Makale' },
    title: { en: 'The Kilogram That Lost Weight', ar: 'الكيلوغرام الذي فقد وزناً', tr: 'Kilo Veren Kilogram' },
    summary: {
      en: 'For 130 years, the world\'s kilogram was a metal cylinder in a Paris vault — until it started to change.',
      ar: 'لمدة ١٣٠ عاماً، كان كيلوغرام العالم أسطوانة معدنية في قبو باريسي — حتى بدأ يتغير.',
      tr: '130 yıl boyunca dünyanın kilogramı Paris\'te bir kasadaki metal silindirdi — değişmeye başlayana kadar.',
    },
    figure: {
      caption: { en: 'The platinum cylinder that once defined the kilogram, under its glass bells.', ar: 'الأسطوانة البلاتينية التي عرّفت الكيلوغرام يوماً، تحت أجراسها الزجاجية.', tr: 'Bir zamanlar kilogramı tanımlayan platin silindir, cam fanuslarının altında.' },
      prompt: 'A small gleaming platinum cylinder protected under three nested glass bell jars in a dim secure vault, dramatic museum lighting.',
    },
    body: [
      'Locked in a basement vault outside Paris, protected by three keys held by three different officials, sits a small cylinder of platinum-iridium alloy. From 1889 to 2019, this object — known formally as the International Prototype of the Kilogram, and informally as *Le Grand K* — was not merely *a* kilogram. It was *the* kilogram: by international agreement, its mass [[constituted]] the definition against which every scale, every shipment, and every scientific measurement on Earth was ultimately calibrated.',
      'The arrangement had an elegant simplicity, but also a hidden [[vulnerability]] that took a century to reveal itself. Roughly every forty years, the official copies distributed to national laboratories around the world were brought back to Paris and compared against the prototype. The comparisons showed something quietly alarming: the masses were drifting apart. Relative to its copies, Le Grand K appeared to have lost approximately fifty micrograms — the weight of a fingerprint.',
      'The philosophical problem was worse than the practical one. Because the prototype *defined* the kilogram, it could not, by definition, be wrong: if it lost material, then technically every other object in the universe had become heavier. Scientists found themselves in the absurd position of possessing a fundamental unit that was [[demonstrably]] unstable, yet legally incapable of error. Metrologists — the scientists of measurement — began a decades-long campaign to free the kilogram from its dependence on any physical [[artifact]].',
      'Their solution, adopted in 2019, redefined the kilogram in terms of the Planck constant, a fundamental number woven into the fabric of quantum physics. Using an extraordinary instrument called a Kibble balance, which weighs objects against a precisely controlled electromagnetic force, any suitably equipped laboratory on Earth can now [[realize]] the kilogram from first principles — no pilgrimage to Paris required. The definition can never again be scratched, stolen, or diminished by a fingerprint\u2019s weight of wear.',
      'The kilogram was the last of the base units to abandon its physical anchor; the meter had been redefined by the speed of light decades earlier. There is something quietly profound in this progression. Humanity began by measuring with its own body — feet, hands, paces — then graduated to artifacts held by kings and republics, and has finally anchored its measurements in constants of nature that no vault can protect and no accident can alter. We did not just improve our units; we removed ourselves from them. It may be the closest thing engineering has to a story of growing up.',
    ],
    vocab: {
      'constituted':   { pos: 'verb', def: 'formed or made up; officially amounted to', ex: 'Its mass constituted the legal definition.' },
      'vulnerability': { pos: 'noun', def: 'a weakness that can lead to failure or harm', ex: 'The system had a hidden vulnerability.' },
      'demonstrably':  { pos: 'adverb', def: 'in a way that can be shown or proved', ex: 'The unit was demonstrably unstable.' },
      'artifact':      { pos: 'noun', def: 'a physical object made by humans', ex: 'The definition depended on a single artifact.' },
      'realize':       { pos: 'verb', def: 'here: to produce or make real from a definition (technical)', ex: 'Labs can realize the kilogram from first principles.' },
    },
    questions: [
      { type:'mcq', q:'What was Le Grand K?',
        options:['A famous scale','The metal cylinder that legally defined the kilogram','A French laboratory','A unit of length'], a:1,
        explainEn:'Its mass constituted the international definition of the kilogram.', explainAr:'كتلته كانت التعريف الدولي للكيلوغرام.' },
      { type:'mcq', q:'What alarming discovery did the comparisons reveal?',
        options:['The copies were stolen','The masses were drifting apart — about 50 micrograms','The vault was damp','The cylinder was fake'], a:1,
        explainEn:'Relative to its copies, the prototype appeared to lose ~50 micrograms.', explainAr:'بدا النموذج فاقداً نحو ٥٠ ميكروغراماً مقارنة بنسخه.' },
      { type:'mcq', q:'Why was the drift a *philosophical* problem?',
        options:['Nobody cared about it','By definition the prototype could not be wrong, yet it was clearly changing','It happened only in France','Micrograms are not measurable'], a:1,
        explainEn:'A defining artifact is legally incapable of error, yet demonstrably unstable.', explainAr:'التعريف لا يمكن أن يخطئ قانونياً رغم تغيره الواضح.' },
      { type:'mcq', q:'How is the kilogram defined since 2019?',
        options:['By a better cylinder','By the Planck constant, realized with a Kibble balance','By the speed of light','By a digital file'], a:1,
        explainEn:'Redefined via the Planck constant; labs realize it from first principles.', explainAr:'أعيد تعريفه عبر ثابت بلانك.' },
      { type:'fill', q:'A physical object made by humans is an ___.', a:'artifact',
        explainEn:'Metrologists freed the unit from any physical artifact.', explainAr:'artifact تعني قطعة مادية مصنوعة.' },
      { type:'fill', q:'A weakness that can lead to failure is a ___.', a:'vulnerability',
        explainEn:'The arrangement had a hidden vulnerability.', explainAr:'vulnerability تعني نقطة ضعف.' },
    ],
  },

  /* ─── C2 · ESSAY ─── */
  {
    id: 'maintenance-essay', level: 'C2', icon: '🔩', minutes: 7,
    kind: { en: 'Essay', ar: 'مقالة', tr: 'Deneme' },
    title: { en: 'In Praise of Maintenance', ar: 'في مديح الصيانة', tr: 'Bakıma Övgü' },
    summary: {
      en: 'Innovation gets the headlines, but civilization is kept alive by the unglamorous work of repair.',
      ar: 'الابتكار يحصد العناوين، لكن الحضارة تبقى حية بعمل الإصلاح غير البرّاق.',
      tr: 'Manşetleri inovasyon alıyor ama medeniyeti, onarımın gösterişsiz emeği ayakta tutuyor.',
    },
    figure: {
      caption: { en: 'A maintenance engineer inspects a bridge cable high above the water.', ar: 'مهندس صيانة يفحص كابل جسر عالياً فوق الماء.', tr: 'Bir bakım mühendisi suyun yükseğinde bir köprü kablosunu inceliyor.' },
      prompt: 'A maintenance engineer in climbing harness inspecting the massive main cable of a suspension bridge at dawn, city skyline far below, quiet heroic mood.',
    },
    body: [
      'Every culture tells stories about its builders. We name bridges after the engineers who [[conceived]] them, award prizes to inventors, and fill museums with first prototypes. Yet the bridge that collapses is almost never the one that was badly designed; it is the one that was badly kept. If innovation is civilization\u2019s act of creation, maintenance is its act of fidelity — and it is telling that we have a thousand celebrations for the former and scarcely a vocabulary for the latter.',
      'The numbers, for those willing to look, are unambiguous. The overwhelming majority of engineering work performed on any given day is not the creation of new systems but the [[stewardship]] of old ones: patching software written decades ago, replacing corroded pipe, recalibrating instruments that have drifted. By most estimates, maintenance and operations consume the large majority of a typical system\u2019s lifetime cost. The new is a thin, glittering crust on a planet of upkeep.',
      'Why, then, the [[asymmetry]] in prestige? Partly because maintenance succeeds invisibly. The reward for a perfectly maintained water system is that nothing happens: no outbreak, no outage, no story. Success is the absence of events, and absence makes poor television. Innovation, by contrast, produces artifacts — launches, ribbon-cuttings, keynote demonstrations — that photograph well. We are narrative creatures, and maintenance offers no narrative arc: no before and after, only an endless, vigilant *during*.',
      'There is also a subtler bias at work: we mistake novelty for progress. A society can grow demonstrably worse at keeping its water clean and its bridges standing while [[congratulating]] itself on the brilliance of its newest devices. The philosopher of technology would note that a smartphone in a city of failing infrastructure is not progress but decoration. Progress, properly accounted, must include the unglamorous denominator: not what we can build, but what we can keep working.',
      'None of this is an argument against invention — only against the hierarchy that ranks inventing above sustaining. The two are not rivals but phases of a single obligation. Every act of creation writes a promissory note that decades of maintenance must honor; to build something is to [[bequeath]] a duty. The most radical thing an engineering culture could do is to say so plainly: to promote its maintainers, to teach repair with the same reverence as design, and to measure itself not by what it unveils, but by what it refuses to let fall apart.',
      'The next time you cross a bridge, consider that its true heroes are not only the celebrated designers whose names adorn the plaque, but the anonymous inspectors who walked its cables last Tuesday, and will again next month, and the month after that — the quiet [[custodians]] of other people\u2019s promises. Civilization is not the act of building the bridge. It is the ten thousand mornings of keeping it standing.',
    ],
    vocab: {
      'conceived':      { pos: 'verb', def: 'formed an idea or design in the mind', ex: 'The engineer who conceived the bridge became famous.' },
      'stewardship':    { pos: 'noun', def: 'the responsible care of something entrusted to you', ex: 'Maintenance is the stewardship of old systems.' },
      'asymmetry':      { pos: 'noun', def: 'a lack of balance between two sides', ex: 'There is an asymmetry in prestige between creating and maintaining.' },
      'congratulating': { pos: 'verb', def: 'praising (here: praising oneself)', ex: 'A society congratulating itself on its devices.' },
      'bequeath':       { pos: 'verb', def: 'to pass something on to those who come after', ex: 'To build is to bequeath a duty.' },
      'custodians':     { pos: 'noun', def: 'people who guard and take care of something', ex: 'Maintainers are the custodians of our infrastructure.' },
    },
    questions: [
      { type:'mcq', q:'What central asymmetry does the essay describe?',
        options:['Between hardware and software','Between the prestige of innovation and of maintenance','Between old and young engineers','Between cost and quality'], a:1,
        explainEn:'A thousand celebrations for innovation, scarcely a vocabulary for maintenance.', explainAr:'ألف احتفال بالابتكار وبالكاد مفردات للصيانة.' },
      { type:'mcq', q:'Why does maintenance succeed "invisibly"?',
        options:['It happens at night','Its success is the absence of events — no story to tell','It is kept secret','It requires no skill'], a:1,
        explainEn:'The reward for perfect maintenance is that nothing happens.', explainAr:'مكافأة الصيانة المثالية ألا يحدث شيء.' },
      { type:'mcq', q:'What does "a smartphone in a city of failing infrastructure is not progress but decoration" mean?',
        options:['Phones are useless','Novelty without upkeep is not real progress','Cities should ban phones','Infrastructure needs phones'], a:1,
        explainEn:'We mistake novelty for progress; progress must include what we keep working.', explainAr:'نخلط بين الجِدة والتقدم؛ التقدم يشمل ما نبقيه عاملاً.' },
      { type:'mcq', q:'What is the essay\u2019s final claim about civilization?',
        options:['It is the act of building the bridge','It is the ten thousand mornings of keeping the bridge standing','It is invention alone','It is written on plaques'], a:1,
        explainEn:'Civilization is sustained by continuous upkeep, not just creation.', explainAr:'الحضارة تستمر بالصيانة الدائمة لا بالإبداع وحده.' },
      { type:'fill', q:'The responsible care of something entrusted to you is ___.', a:'stewardship',
        explainEn:'Most engineering work is the stewardship of old systems.', explainAr:'stewardship تعني رعاية مسؤولة.' },
      { type:'fill', q:'People who guard and take care of something are ___.', a:'custodians',
        explainEn:'Maintainers are the quiet custodians of promises.', explainAr:'custodians تعني الأوصياء.' },
    ],
  },

  /* ─── C2 · ESSAY / LANGUAGE ─── */
  {
    id: 'plain-language-essay', level: 'C2', icon: '✒️', minutes: 6,
    kind: { en: 'Essay', ar: 'مقالة', tr: 'Deneme' },
    title: { en: 'The Courage of Plain Language', ar: 'شجاعة اللغة البسيطة', tr: 'Sade Dilin Cesareti' },
    summary: {
      en: 'Why complex writing is often a form of hiding — and clarity the riskier, braver act.',
      ar: 'لماذا الكتابة المعقدة غالباً شكل من الاختباء — والوضوح هو الفعل الأشجع والأكثر مخاطرة.',
      tr: 'Karmaşık yazı neden çoğu zaman bir saklanma biçimidir — ve netlik neden daha riskli, daha cesur bir eylemdir.',
    },
    figure: {
      caption: { en: 'A heavily edited draft: long phrases struck out, short ones written in.', ar: 'مسودة كثيفة التحرير: عبارات طويلة مشطوبة وقصيرة مكتوبة مكانها.', tr: 'Yoğun düzenlenmiş bir taslak: uzun ifadeler çizilmiş, yerlerine kısaları yazılmış.' },
      prompt: 'A printed manuscript page covered in red editing marks, long jargon phrases crossed out with shorter plain words written above them, a fountain pen resting on the page.',
    },
    body: [
      'Every profession develops a dialect, and every dialect begins as a tool. Engineers genuinely need "impedance" and "hysteresis"; lawyers genuinely need "estoppel." The trouble begins when the dialect stops serving precision and starts serving [[concealment]] — when "we are experiencing a revenue shortfall" replaces "we are losing money," and "the deliverable has been deprioritized" replaces "we cancelled it." At that point, complexity is no longer a technical necessity. It is a hiding place.',
      'Consider what plain language actually demands of its writer. To say "the bridge may fail if the winter is severe" is to make a claim that can be checked, remembered, and quoted back to you. Its [[falsifiability]] is exactly what makes it valuable — and exactly what makes it frightening. The murkier alternative — "certain seasonal load scenarios may present elevated structural risk profiles" — commits its author to nothing. Obscurity is not a stylistic failure; it is a liability strategy. The passive voice, in particular, has sheltered generations of undefined agents: mistakes *were made*, corners *were cut*, warnings *went unheeded* — by whom, the grammar politely declines to say.',
      'There is a widespread suspicion — rarely spoken, deeply held — that simple writing signals a simple mind. The evidence runs precisely the other way. Writing simply about a complex subject requires *more* mastery, not less: the author must understand the material so thoroughly that they can identify which nine-tenths of it the reader does not need. Jargon, by contrast, allows a writer to [[gesture]] toward understanding without demonstrating it — the terminology arrives pre-assembled and the sentences write themselves. Anyone who has tried to explain their own research to an intelligent child knows the peculiar terror of discovering how much of one\u2019s fluency was borrowed from vocabulary rather than earned by comprehension.',
      'The great counterexamples prove the point. The finest technical reports — the accident investigations that changed industries, the physics lectures that outsold novels — are [[relentlessly]] readable. Richard Feynman demonstrated the cause of the Challenger disaster with a piece of rubber and a glass of ice water, on live television, in under a minute. He was not simplifying the physics; he was *revealing* it. The clip endures because clarity at that level is not a dilution of expertise but its most concentrated form.',
      'For the engineer writing in a second language, this analysis carries an unexpected gift. Learners often apologize for their plain sentences, believing that "real" professional English means long words in long chains. In truth, the clear, short sentence a learner constructs from necessity is frequently *better* — more precise, more accountable, more useful — than the [[ornate]] fog a native speaker produces from habit. Your constraint is a discipline that many native writers spend years trying to reacquire. Write the plain sentence. It is not what you settle for. It is what the best writers are aiming at.',
    ],
    vocab: {
      'concealment':    { pos: 'noun', def: 'the act of hiding something', ex: 'Vague language can serve concealment.' },
      'falsifiability': { pos: 'noun', def: 'the property of being able to be proved wrong (a scientific virtue)', ex: 'A clear claim\u2019s falsifiability is its value.' },
      'gesture':        { pos: 'verb', def: 'here: to indicate vaguely without demonstrating', ex: 'Jargon lets a writer gesture toward understanding.' },
      'relentlessly':   { pos: 'adverb', def: 'without stopping or softening; persistently', ex: 'The best reports are relentlessly readable.' },
      'ornate':         { pos: 'adjective', def: 'elaborately decorated; excessively complex in style', ex: 'Ornate prose can hide weak thinking.' },
    },
    questions: [
      { type:'mcq', q:'When does professional dialect become a problem, per the essay?',
        options:['When foreigners use it','When it stops serving precision and starts serving concealment','When it uses Latin words','When it is spoken aloud'], a:1,
        explainEn:'Complexity becomes a hiding place rather than a technical necessity.', explainAr:'يصبح التعقيد مخبأً لا ضرورة تقنية.' },
      { type:'mcq', q:'Why is a plain claim like "the bridge may fail" frightening to write?',
        options:['It is grammatically hard','It can be checked and quoted back — it commits the author','Bridges rarely fail','It is impolite'], a:1,
        explainEn:'Its falsifiability makes it valuable and frightening.', explainAr:'قابليتها للدحض تجعلها قيّمة ومخيفة معاً.' },
      { type:'mcq', q:'What does the essay claim about writing simply on complex subjects?',
        options:['It signals a simple mind','It requires MORE mastery — knowing what the reader doesn\u2019t need','It is only for children','It is impossible in engineering'], a:1,
        explainEn:'You must understand deeply to choose what to omit.', explainAr:'يتطلب فهماً عميقاً لاختيار ما يُحذف.' },
      { type:'mcq', q:'What "unexpected gift" does the analysis offer second-language writers?',
        options:['They should use more jargon','Their plain sentences are often better than native ornate fog','They should avoid writing','Grammar does not matter'], a:1,
        explainEn:'The learner\u2019s constraint is a discipline the best writers aim at.', explainAr:'قيد المتعلم انضباط يسعى إليه أفضل الكتّاب.' },
      { type:'fill', q:'The property of being provable-wrong is ___.', a:'falsifiability',
        explainEn:'A claim\u2019s falsifiability is what makes it valuable.', explainAr:'falsifiability تعني قابلية الدحض.' },
      { type:'fill', q:'Excessively decorated or complex in style: ___.', a:'ornate',
        explainEn:'Ornate fog vs the plain sentence.', explainAr:'ornate تعني منمقاً بإفراط.' },
    ],
  },

]);