It also struck me reading your thing why I find some approaches to science popularization just... bad. Like Neil DeGrasse Tyson style.
They mystify the thought processes and fetishize the latest version of the “facts”. Shock-and-awe scientism. It might as well be religion.
Your style is to clarify the methods even if it doesn’t get you to the leading edge of facts. Thus is superior. The edge can shift/backslide, but methods of thought, like “model classically and quantize” create patterns of thought that I suspect are the actual content of science.
If you did Cosmos v 3.0, I can see you building up stacks of methods each episode using bathtub type ideas that get you to say a basic appreciation of something esoteric like “black hole surface information” where Tyson would present a parade of Hubble pictures signifying nothing
The question is: what best gets you to "model classically and quantize" in a useful way. I'm OK with Bohr as the first step, but I think Dirac (ie Hamiltonian mechanics with minimal substitution) is ABYSSMAL as the next step.