When it comes to why some projects are so easily overlooked, I think it's not that mysterious. In today's environment, everyone has developed a very fixed way of evaluating projects—first grasp the narrative, then see if the emotions can be triggered, and finally decide whether to invest effort to understand.

APRO happens to be out of sync in all three stages. The first impression clearly shows that this project doesn't have any particularly strong labels. Unlike those whose names immediately suggest a certain direction, or those old stories that have been repeatedly validated. It's hard to give it a clear category in three seconds—honestly, in the current information consumption environment, this is a fatal flaw. Because most judgments are made in a very short time now.

I'm the same way. I didn't think it was bad at first; I just felt "there's no need to look now." This mindset is quite genuine and quite common. The market is pushing all kinds of seemingly more direct and stimulating things every day, and projects like this won't actively grab your attention.

Looking deeper, many people skip over it not because they lack technical understanding, but because they already have a fixed expectation model. In this model, a project must have a clear breakout point, a narrative that can spread quickly, and a reason to ignite emotions instantly. But APRO's presentation clearly doesn't follow this template. That's why it's easily overlooked—not because of the project itself, but because it doesn't quite match the market's current "fast-food" cognitive system.