Many physical attributes are \emph{irreversible}: ice melts but does not re-freeze, paper chars but does not un-burn. Do video generators respect this? We show the question is hard to measure, and that what can be measured reliably is \emph{development} rather than reversal. Metrics of local reversal are null-degenerate: a per-clip violation rate scores $0.50$ on pure noise, and a variance-normalized reversal residual sits at its noise ceiling. What survives null-testing is a two-part protocol: progress (a directional attribute correlation) and a stasis rate. Under this protocol, generated video separates cleanly from real footage, and the gap is human-validated. Across seven text-to-video models, real reference footage advances ($ρ{=}{+}0.40$, $35\%$ static) while every generator shows near-zero progress and $92$--$100\%$ stasis; nine annotators rate real footage far above generated ($2.75$ vs.\ $0.99$ on a $0$--$4$ scale). The reliable finding is \emph{under-development}: generators barely advance irreversible attributes rather than reversing them. As a complementary mechanism, we show that post-hoc readout guidance is gameable, whereas enforcing monotonicity by construction in a disentangled attribute latent removes the gameable readout, validated in controlled and semi-synthetic settings.
To study the ability to infer physical dynamics from videos and extrapolate them forward in time, we assemble a dataset of 2D Material Point Method (MPM) physical simulations covering rich physical phenomena such as deformable objects, fluids, kinetic objects, and emitters. We study code generation and video diffusion approaches on this dataset, identifying their strengths and weaknesses by varying the amount of physically relevant side information. The code generation model, beyond giving a working demonstration of automatic synthesis of MPM simulations, reveals that such an approach struggles with inferring physical parameters from visual input, but relative to video diffusion, produces physically and temporally stable extrapolations forward in time, while the video diffusion model more strongly identifies geometric properties from visual input but produces physically implausible extrapolations.