Shannon Aurelia WidjajaShannon Aurelia
Widjaja
Open channel
Return to mission archiveMINDASSEMBLY · AI SYSTEM · 2026

Making an AI system's reasoning visible, editable, and testable.

I built MindAssembly as a solo hackathon project to explore a question that matters beyond one demo: what changes when people can see the structure behind a machine's conclusion?

1inspectable reasoning graph
Live prototype · Hackathon submissionproject status
1inspectable reasoning graph
MINDASSEMBLY · AI SYSTEM · 2026
ROLE

Solo creator · Product, design, and engineering

WHEN

August 2026

WITH

Independent hackathon project

THE OVERVIEW

MindAssembly began with my interest in human thought, algorithms, and trustworthy AI. Instead of building another chat surface, I wanted to expose a small reasoning system as something spatial and inspectable.

The prototype represents concepts as weighted nodes and their relationships as edges. Its behavior is deterministic by design: the goal is not to imitate a hidden model, but to give people a controlled environment for understanding how structure and influence shape an outcome.

01 · CONTEXT

Most AI interfaces present an answer but conceal the structure that produced it. Users cannot see which concepts dominated, how relationships changed the result, or what would happen under a different assumption.

02 · MY RESPONSE

MindAssembly turns reasoning into a deterministic weighted graph. Users can inspect nodes and connections, alter influence, rerun the system, and compare how the conclusion changes.

03
THE PROCESS

How I moved through the work.

01

Define the mental model

I reduced the experience to concepts, connections, weights, and an outcome so the interface could teach the system without a manual.

02

Build the graph engine

I implemented a deterministic weighted-graph simulation in TypeScript, keeping every change reproducible and inspectable.

03

Turn analysis into interaction

I designed editing and rerun flows so users could ask counterfactual questions by changing the system itself rather than writing another prompt.

04
KEY DECISIONS

The choices that shaped the result.

  1. Use deterministic behavior so identical inputs always produce the same result
  2. Represent influence visually instead of burying it in a settings panel
  3. Build an original reasoning interface rather than a conventional chatbot
  4. Keep the prototype honest about what it simulates and what it does not
WHAT IT DELIVERED

Built and shipped a complete solo prototype

Made model-like reasoning legible as an interactive system

Designed for counterfactual exploration rather than passive consumption

MY SCOPE

Product concept

Interaction design

Graph simulation

Frontend engineering

05 · REFLECTION
MindAssembly clarified the direction I want to pursue: intelligence tools should not only generate results. They should help people inspect assumptions, understand relationships, and reason more deliberately.