Is this not oversimplified to the point of being wrong?

It is the failure we check for hardest, and it is question four of nine on our editorial list: did we simplify without making it wrong?

The distinction we work to is translation rather than simplification. Simplification removes the part that made the idea worth knowing, leaving something a child can repeat and nobody can use. Translation keeps the concept and changes how it arrives.

Where a subject cannot survive that, it does not get published. We tried an early explanation of inflation twice. Every version short enough to draw was wrong in a way that would need unlearning later, so it is waiting behind the ideas it depends on.