# Scientific contract and independent review This is a generic educational demonstrator, not reproduction of a reported transistor or calibrated predictive device simulator. ## Architecture Single-layer 1H-MoS2 on SiO2, on heavily doped Si global back gate; Au top source/drain. The source is grounded, drain has VDS >= 0, gate has VGS. L is the inner contact-edge gap. Monolayer thickness and all exploded gaps are visually exaggerated. Pure Au contacts in this architecture class are reported by Ahn et al., 2017: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5481332/ . Their oxide is 285nm; this demonstrator's 300nm default is independently chosen, not attributed to that experiment. ## Current model Ideal charge-sheet/long-channel gradual-channel approximation: Cox=eps0 epsr/tox, beta=mu Cox W/L. Vov=VGS-Vth. Id=0 when Vov<=0; Id=beta(Vov VDS - VDS²/2) for 0<=VDS=Vov. This is a generic illustrative model applied to a 2D accumulation channel, not the p-body inversion structure of a silicon MOSFET. Default mobility 10cm²/Vs and threshold 1V are demonstration parameters, not verified material constants. University derivations: https://lampz.tugraz.at/~hadley/psd/L10/gradualchannelapprox.php and https://ocw.mit.edu/courses/6-012-microelectronic-devices-and-circuits-fall-2009/resources/mit6_012f09_lec11_gradual/ . The application does not implement contact resistance/Schottky barriers, traps, quantum capacitance, subthreshold/leakage, velocity saturation, self-heating or a Poisson/quantum transport solver. Real contact limitations are documented in Liu et al., ACS Nano 2015 DOI10.1021/nn506512j: https://www.media.mit.edu/publications/impact-of-contact-on-the-operation-and-performance-of-back-gated-monolayer-mos2-field-effect-transistors/ . All displayed characteristics are model-generated on a linear current axis. ## Atomic sheet Ideal 1H trigonal-prismatic S–Mo–S. Triangular a1=(a,0), a2=(a/2,sqrt(3)a/2); Mo at 0 and S at (a1+a2)/3 in both upper and lower planes. a=3.16Å and Mo–S vertical h=1.565Å are approximate illustrative geometry, not one measured parameter set. Each interior Mo has three S neighbors above and three below. References: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4945536/ and https://qpeng.org/publication/pdf/Peng_2013_pccp_MoS2.pdf . Atomic view is a separate scale, not all atoms of the micron-scale device. ## Animation and audit Electron markers illustrate source-to-drain net drift for positive VDS; conventional current points drain-to-source. Markers remain in the MoS2 channel display plane, never in the oxide, and net motion stops at zero VDS or cutoff. Markers do not represent individual trajectories, actual carrier count or physical speed. No field arrows or electronic band diagram are claimed as computed outputs. An independent AI reviewer checked these scientific assumptions, supplied numeric regression values, and reviewed model.mjs, model.test.mjs, device.mjs, index.html and this document. Four geometry/numerical tests also passed independently. The reviewer found two visual inconsistencies: spherical direction markers partly intersected the oxide, and longitudinal/transverse display scale differed. Corrections use zero-thickness planar direction markers within the channel and equal x/z scale factors; their full rendered bounds and aspect ratio are checked by the browser verification. Transient texture disposal was also repaired. This is an AI-assisted review, not certification by an experimental device specialist. Regression: Cox=1.151044415664e-4 F/m² (11.51044nF/cm²); for VGS=5V and VDS=1V, Id=0.805731090965µA; for VGS=5V and VDS>=4V, Id=1.8416710650624µA. ## Review closure The independent AI reviewer rechecked the saved corrections and closed both required findings, with no remaining material blocker. Equal x/z device scale and planar markers were confirmed in the final code; texture/instance cleanup was also confirmed. Browser checks remain separate evidence, recorded in VALIDATION.md when complete. ## Presentation refinement 0.4 The physical model source remains SHA256 `152DB807FC683B8FE9B6F8707B2CB6C87835060C7C20CDB318C43E0592418AD8`. Materials have illustrative procedural roughness/bump shading; these are not measured optical properties or surface topography. Contact bevels preserve the original external contact faces and source–drain gap (independently checked with the vendored geometry library). Staggered display offsets separate contacts before channel and oxide and reassemble in reverse. The independent reviewer and new tests checked layer order across intermediate positions. Carrier heads and fading tails stay planar and confined; tails are removed at the source reset rather than drawn across the device. Any requested or actual display separation hides markers/arrows and pauses their phase. Curves continue to refer to the assembled ideal device, explicitly labeled in the view. The independent atomic inset has a scale-change transition rather than claiming a physical continuous device-to-atom simulation. Independent AI review found no material blocker in these changes and independently passed all seven numerical, geometry and presentation tests. Browser checks are recorded separately.