About Experli.

The story of mathematics, astronomy, medicine, and the broader intellectual heritage of the Indian subcontinent is widely told but rarely cited. A reader who wants to verify a claim about Brahmagupta’s zero or Aryabhata’s diurnal-rotation argument runs into a wall of secondary summaries that point at each other.

Experli starts at the other end. Every claim quotes its primary source verbatim, the source is rated on a four-tier authority scale, and the quote-to-source check runs every night automatically. If we cannot point you at the sentence, we do not publish the thought. The full mechanism is on the methodology page.

Experli is a single-operator project at MVP. One person curates the source library, runs the editorial review, and writes the social posts. AI assists with extraction, adversarial fact-checking, and format generation; an editor reviews every claim and every post before it ships. There is no anonymous editorial board behind a house byline.

When the platform grows to multiple editors, the operator role becomes a separate concern. Until then, the editorial voice is one person’s, and the editorial decisions on every claim are recorded in the platform’s own audit trail.

Experli is not a hot-take feed about ancient India. We do not use phrases like ancient wisdom, rediscover, or lost knowledge. The work was never lost — it was written down, copied, translated, taught, and built on for a thousand years. The premise of the platform is that the citation chain to those sources matters, and that the chain reads better when it is not buried in a marketing voice.

Experli is not a comment thread. If something on the platform looks wrong, the way to engage is to file a flag with a counter-source. Every flag is reviewed; outcomes are visible on the claim page; counts of flags and counts of updates are public.

Experli is not selling a subscription. We capture emails so that if there is something worth your time we can send it; we are not running a regular newsletter and we are not behind a paywall. Decision-6 in our Phase 2 plan defers email-send infrastructure entirely until there is a defined send program.

The current corpus is anchored in Indian mathematics from roughly 500 BCE to 1200 CE — the Sulbasutras, Pingala’s Chandahsutra, Aryabhata, Brahmagupta, Mahāvīra, and Bhāskara II — and in Indian astronomy from roughly 400 CE to 1200 CE, drawing on the Sūrya-Siddhānta, Aryabhata, Varāhamihira, Brahmagupta, and Bhāskara II. The Aryabhatīya and Brāhmasphuṭasiddhānta sit in both pillars: their authors worked across mathematics and astronomy as a single discipline. The library expands deliberately; we add sources only when we have time to chunk, extract, and review them properly. There is no incentive to grow the corpus past what editorial can defend.

The platform is built to host other civilizations on the same editorial standard — Greek, Chinese, Mesopotamian, Persian, Egyptian, Mesoamerican — once the Indian core is deep enough that the methodology speaks for itself. That sequencing is deliberate: we want the way we cover the Indian tradition to be the proof of the editorial standard, not a parochial commitment.

You can reach the operator at editorial@experli.com. The most useful thing you can send is a claim that looks wrong, with a counter-source attached — that is the fastest way to make the platform better.

For everything else — questions about the methodology, requests to add a source, suggestions for the next pillar — the same address works.