This submission presents a simple, easily repeatable pulley experiment intended to highlight what the author argues is an overlooked variable in standard interpretations of energy extraction in gravitational systems. The setup uses two masses connected by a rope running over ceiling-mounted pulleys. A heavier container is lifted to a starting height while tied to a lighter container resting on the floor. When released, the heavier container descends and lifts the lighter one through the same vertical distance. The video documents the entire sequence in real time. According to the conventional interpretation of gravitational potential energy, the descending mass should only be able to supply enough usable energy to fall its own height; lifting an additional load is normally framed as reducing the available output. However, in the demonstration, the heavier container still completes its entire drop while simultaneously raising the lighter container through the same distance. The accompanying document (“Not Perpetual Motion: A Simple Pulley Test Challenging an Overlooked Variable”) outlines the conceptual motivation: that slowing a falling mass increases the duration over which gravity acts, and therefore—as the author proposes—may increase total gravitational energy input over time. The experiment is presented as a practical illustration of this proposed “gravity-over-time” perspective. No claim of perpetual motion is made. Rather, the materials are offered to invite discussion about whether time-dependent gravitational interaction has been under-examined in common energy-extraction models, and to encourage independent replication of the simple test. Video and manuscript included.This version includes a new document analyzing a fundamental flaw in the traditional Atwood machine interpretation when applied to the pulley experiment published in Version 1. The Atwood subtraction method (m₁ – m₂)gh does not match the physical results observed in the real apparatus, where both masses undergo full gravitational displacement and the upward motion of the lighter mass constitutes additional, not subtractive, gravitational work. This new file explains the conceptual and mathematical issue and clarifies why the experiment demonstrates additive gravitational action rather than the standard cancellation model. All original files remain included for full context.