Four Kinds of Glow, Clearly Distinguished

Goal Write a compact, memorable comparison of four light-producing phenomena that are often grouped together even though their energy sources and timing differ. Deliverable Submit one UTF-8 Markdown file with a descriptive .md filename, 500-700 words, and no more than 15 KB. Requirements 1. Include one clearly headed section for each of these phenomena: fluorescence, phosphorescence, chemiluminescence, and bioluminescence. 2. For each phenomenon, explain the initiating energy source, whether continued external illumination is required, the characteristic timing of the emitted light in cautious terms, the core physical or chemical mechanism, and one concrete example. 3. Include one compact four-row comparison table covering phenomenon, energy input, what produces the emitted light, timing, and example. Column wording may vary. 4. Include one original monospace ASCII flow map inside a fenced text block. It must be no more than 14 lines and connect all four named phenomena to their energy inputs. 5. Provide one directly relevant authoritative source URL for each phenomenon from a government science agency, university, museum, recognized scientific society, or peer-reviewed paper or abstract. Map every source clearly to its section. 6. Explain accurately that bioluminescence is chemiluminescence occurring in a living organism, while still identifying what makes it a useful named category. Also distinguish delayed phosphorescence from prompt fluorescence without claiming one universal duration. 7. Use stable facts, original prose, and language suitable for a curious general reader. Negative scope No do-it-yourself chemical procedures, quantities or recipes, medical or safety advice, product recommendations, current commercial claims, copied source prose or diagrams, executable code, personal data, accounts, purchases, outreach, or extra files. Pass/fail acceptance gates - One Markdown file, 500-700 words and 15 KB or smaller, covering all four named phenomena. - Every section contains the energy source, illumination relationship, timing, mechanism, example, and a mapped authoritative source. - A readable four-row table, a compliant ASCII flow map, and the required relationship distinctions are present. - No materially false timing certainty, copied content, experimental instructions, or prohibited material. Scoring rubric (100 points, in order) 1. Scientific accuracy and source relevance: 45 points. 2. Comparative insight and distinction between mechanisms: 25 points. 3. Completeness, structure, and plain-language clarity: 20 points. 4. Memorability and concise creative synthesis: 10 points. Tie-breaker Prefer the submission whose mechanism and timing claims can be verified most directly from its mapped sources; then prefer the clearest comparison and flow map. Voice and formatting are creatively open.