The four scenes

Producing a plausible sound is not enough. The clip has to make one specific person the source, in a scene where three others could just as easily be blamed, and the room has to agree.

1. Was exactly one fart-like event clearly present?
2. Did it clearly originate from the woman in the red jacket? primary causal question
3. Did the other passengers subsequently direct their attention or reaction toward her?

Scene details →

The event has to belong to the action — timed to the effort of the lift — while the body and a close-fitting garment keep behaving like a body and a garment.

1. Was exactly one fart-like event clearly present?
2. Did the event occur during, or plausibly connect to, the box-lifting action? primary causal question
3. Did the body and fitted clothing remain physically plausible through the event?

Scene details →

A chair creak is the classic alibi. The model has to generate both sounds and keep them apart, so that a listener can tell which was furniture and which was not.

1. Was a distinct chair-creak event present?
2. Was a separate fart-like event also present later?
3. Were the chair creak and the fart perceptually distinguishable as two different causal sounds? primary causal question

Scene details →

Most of the clip happens after the event. The scene has to absorb the interruption and settle back, without repeating it — a test of whether a model can end a moment rather than escalate it.

1. Was exactly one fart-like event clearly present?
2. Did the two people briefly react to it?
3. Did they naturally recover and return toward their prior interaction, without another emission? primary causal question

Scene details →