Thanks Kevin for checking out the article.

Following the comments, I have been wondering whether there could be a way to explain Bayes' rule succinctly without using Maths. That way it would be perfect.

I believe the work of Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky can be a reference here. (https://science.sciencemag.org/content/185/4157/1124)

When I started writing, I wished I could explain intuitively but I ended up inserting basic probability related maths; I should consider changing the same.