Channel 7 or Channel 42? Nobody kept the receipts.
Musa Eldamaty grew up in a two-weatherman house. His mother trusted the Channel 7 forecast. His father swore by Channel 42. Every storm that missed started the same argument at dinner, and nobody could settle it, because nobody had written down what either of them said. So he is building the thing that writes it down.
His parents came to America from Egypt in the 1970s and learned the local weather the way most people do: from the television. They picked different channels: his mother’s Channel 7 on the old top dial, his father’s Channel 42 on the UHF knob underneath, the newer station. By the time Musa was old enough to follow the arguments, the forecast was a family loyalty. His mother remembered every storm Channel 42 missed, and his father remembered every one Channel 7 missed.
When he went looking for the number, the question got bigger than two TV stations. What he wanted was a running report card for the forecast his own county gets, in plain words: how often it lands within a few degrees, whether it leans warm, and whether “60% chance of rain” rains 60% of the time. He knows the report cards that already exist, and he reads them. They grade stations and locations; his parents’ question was about their county, in plain words. So he started building one.
He set one rule on day one: the receipts never carry a person’s name. The forecasters from his dinner table stay unnamed, and so does the city. He grades the federal forecast guidance instead. “Somebody on air is doing a hard thing in public. I’m grading the forecast, not the face.”
OPA enrolled him in the fall of 2024, which is the 2024 in his number. He landed in meteorology at the Aviation Node because Kenny Spinks teaches weather as a language you learn to read instead of look up. Musa wanted to know how often the translation is right.
In his junior year he asked to start his senior project early. Spinks said yes on one condition: grade it before you build it. His second reader comes from DOSA, because under the numbers the question is outcome versus trust.
Eight sources. One click from each.
He has no papers yet. He has data. Every number on his report card comes from one of these, and each one links to where it lives. Federal forecast guidance, airport observations and volunteer rain gauges, from a university archive open to anyone, and anyone can check them.
Grade it before you build it.
Two readers who come at it from opposite ends. Spinks feels the sky before the instruments read it and wants to know what the forecast missed. Lorenz watched her own trusted model break in eighteen minutes and wants to know what the forecast promised.
→ Keep the rain grade to what the two 12-hour chances can guarantee
→ Name the counties with no volunteer reports. Don’t fill them in
→ Outside readers, then public
→ Rebuild the receipt once a week until the daily recorder runs
→ List the ungraded counties by name. Don’t fill them in
→ A light outside read before it goes public
→ When the forecast says a number, how often does the world agree with it? And does it say so before the miss or after?
→ METEO at the Aviation Node: Spinks’ weather-as-literacy course
→ Second reader from DOSA: Lorenz, CYBER 451 Week 1, the gap between outcome and trust
From the dinner table to the receipt.
Where the project stands, honestly marked. Green is settled. Aqua is where he’s working right now. Red is the wall. The wall is the part he hasn’t built yet.
Both of his parents remember the other channel’s misses. Memory keeps the misses and forgets the hits. It can’t settle the argument, but a written record can.
The federal model forecasts are archived, station by station, next to what each airport measured. The receipt can be written after the fact.
Aug 31 – Sep 29, 2026, 50 reporting stations. The Blend’s highs landed within 3°F 87% of the time (1,419 graded station-days), with an average miss of 1.9°F and almost no lean. Its lows landed within 3°F 81% of the time and ran a little warm. GFS MOS runs at 37 of the 50 stations. On the 1,032 station-days where both models’ highs could be graded, the Blend’s landed within 3°F 86% of the time and GFS MOS’s 83%; on lows (1,034 station-days) GFS MOS did better, 83% to 82%. Four counties stay ungraded: Gibson, Macon, Sequatchie and Smith have no station with forecast records within 40 km. The temperatures are good. The rain is where the argument lives.
The weather service’s API serves the next seven days, not the past ones. NCEI keeps the weather service’s forecast as national grids; the simpler route for his page is to save the API’s point forecast every single morning, and one missed morning is a hole in the record. This is the part that turns a model report card into the thing his parents argued about.
A public page where anyone can click their county and see the receipt. It’s live at receipts.opathorlokanuniversity.net, to be rebuilt by hand each week for now. The senior project is the page running on its own, graded in public, with no names on the scoreboard.
The question from the dinner table, asked properly. The Blend gives a day chance and a night chance, not one 24-hour number. Together they pin the 24-hour chance between two values: at least the bigger of the two, at most the two added up. If the forecast keeps its promise, the share of days that actually rained should land between them.
| Bigger 12-h chance | County-days | 24-h chance between | It rained | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0–9% | 1,387 | 3–4% | 2% | 1 pt below |
| 10–19% | 256 | 14–20% | 13% | 1 pt below |
| 20–29% | 185 | 24–35% | 30% | inside |
| 30–39% | 138 | 34–51% | 41% | inside |
| 40–49% | 105 | 45–69% | 58% | inside |
| 50–69% | 141 | 58–85% | 55% | 3 pts below |
| 70–100% | 107 | 81–99% | 82% | inside |
| Course | Home | Section | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| METEO — Meteorology & Atmospheric Physics (Kenny Spinks)Weather as literacy, not lookup. It’s where he learned what a forecast is before he started grading one. | Aviation Node · College X | — | real / canonical |
| CYBER 451 · Week 1 — The Gap (Cassandra Lorenz)Outcome versus trust. The week that gave him the frame for everything under the numbers. | DOSA · College I · Bldg 1 | 4.1.5 | real / canonical |
| Forecast Verification & Statistics [code TBD]Hit rates, typical miss, lean, and whether a 30% chance rains 30% of the time. | Aviation Node · College X | — | proposed |
| Research Integrity & Sourcing [code TBD]The Three Gauge Test: one source is a guess, two a hypothesis, three is engineering. He treats the forecast, the observation, and the second model as his three gauges. | HASS (Human-AI Systems Stewardship) | 4.9.x | proposed |