diff --git a/documentation/game-design-decisions.md b/documentation/game-design-decisions.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..2032eb2
--- /dev/null
+++ b/documentation/game-design-decisions.md
@@ -0,0 +1,459 @@
+# Game Design Decisions - Neural Nexus
+
+This document records all major design decisions made during development, including the rationale behind each choice and alternatives considered.
+
+## Table of Contents
+
+1. [Core Concept Decisions](#core-concept-decisions)
+2. [Visual Design Decisions](#visual-design-decisions)
+3. [Gameplay Mechanics Decisions](#gameplay-mechanics-decisions)
+4. [Technical Architecture Decisions](#technical-architecture-decisions)
+5. [User Experience Decisions](#user-experience-decisions)
+6. [Performance Decisions](#performance-decisions)
+
+## Core Concept Decisions
+
+### Decision 1: Neural Network Theme
+**Date:** June 2025  
+**Decision:** Build a puzzle game around neural network connectivity patterns  
+**Rationale:**
+- **Contemporary Relevance:** AI and neural networks are highly topical and engaging
+- **Visual Appeal:** Network patterns provide rich visual possibilities
+- **Educational Value:** Introduces players to AI concepts in accessible way
+- **Differentiation:** Unique theme in puzzle game market
+
+**Alternatives Considered:**
+- Traditional electrical circuits (too technical)
+- Social network connections (overused theme)
+- Abstract geometric patterns (lacks narrative hook)
+
+**Impact:** Defines all visual design, mechanics, and marketing messaging
+
+---
+
+### Decision 2: Puzzle Game Genre
+**Date:** June 2025  
+**Decision:** Focus on connection-based puzzle mechanics rather than action or strategy  
+**Rationale:**
+- **Accessibility:** Easy to learn, hard to master appeals to broad audience
+- **Performance:** Puzzle games can achieve 60fps more easily than action games
+- **Development Scope:** Manageable for single developer
+- **Replay Value:** Procedural level generation provides infinite content
+
+**Alternatives Considered:**
+- Real-time strategy with neural networks (too complex)
+- Action game with network building (performance concerns)
+- Educational simulation (limited audience appeal)
+
+**Impact:** Shapes all gameplay systems and difficulty progression
+
+---
+
+## Visual Design Decisions
+
+### Decision 3: Glassmorphism UI Style
+**Date:** June 2025  
+**Decision:** Use modern glassmorphism design with blur effects and transparency  
+**Rationale:**
+- **Contemporary Feel:** Aligns with current design trends
+- **Neural Theme:** Glass/transparency suggests data flow and connectivity
+- **Depth:** Creates visual hierarchy without overwhelming gameplay
+- **Premium Feel:** Elevates game above basic web games
+
+**Alternatives Considered:**
+- Flat material design (too generic)
+- Skeuomorphic style (outdated, performance heavy)
+- Minimalist approach (lacks visual appeal)
+
+**Technical Implementation:**
+```css
+.game-element {
+  background: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.3);
+  backdrop-filter: blur(10px);
+  border: 1px solid rgba(255, 255, 255, 0.1);
+}
+```
+
+**Impact:** Defines entire visual language and CSS architecture
+
+---
+
+### Decision 4: Color Palette
+**Date:** June 2025  
+**Decision:** Cyan (#00d4ff) and magenta (#ff00ff) as primary colors with dark background  
+**Rationale:**
+- **High Contrast:** Excellent visibility for gameplay elements
+- **Tech Aesthetic:** Evokes computer/digital themes
+- **Accessibility:** Colors remain distinguishable for colorblind users
+- **Energy:** Vibrant palette creates engaging atmosphere
+
+**Color System:**
+```css
+:root {
+  --neural-cyan: #00d4ff;        /* Primary brand, connections */
+  --neural-magenta: #ff00ff;     /* Secondary brand, effects */
+  --source-green: #00ff64;       /* Source nodes */
+  --target-orange: #ff6400;      /* Target nodes */
+  --background-dark: #0a0a0a;    /* Deep background */
+}
+```
+
+**Alternatives Considered:**
+- Blue/green scheme (less energetic)
+- Monochromatic approach (less visual interest)
+- Warm color palette (doesn't match tech theme)
+
+**Impact:** Affects all visual elements and particle effects
+
+---
+
+### Decision 5: Particle Effects System
+**Date:** June 2025  
+**Decision:** Use DOM-based particles with CSS animations for connection feedback  
+**Rationale:**
+- **Performance:** CSS animations are hardware accelerated
+- **Simplicity:** Easier to implement than Canvas-based particles
+- **Flexibility:** Easy to modify colors and timing
+- **Browser Support:** Works across all target browsers
+
+**Implementation Pattern:**
+```javascript
+function createParticleEffect(x, y) {
+  for (let i = 0; i < 10; i++) {
+    const particle = document.createElement('div');
+    particle.className = 'particle';
+    // CSS handles animation and cleanup
+  }
+}
+```
+
+**Alternatives Considered:**
+- Canvas-based particles (more complex, potential performance issues)
+- WebGL effects (overkill for simple feedback)
+- No particles (lacks satisfying feedback)
+
+**Impact:** Enhances user feedback and visual polish
+
+---
+
+## Gameplay Mechanics Decisions
+
+### Decision 6: Click-and-Drag Connection System
+**Date:** June 2025  
+**Decision:** Players connect nodes by dragging from one to another  
+**Rationale:**
+- **Intuitive:** Natural gesture that users understand immediately
+- **Cross-Platform:** Works identically on mouse and touch devices
+- **Precise:** Allows deliberate connection choices
+- **Satisfying:** Physical drag motion feels rewarding
+
+**Interaction Flow:**
+1. Mouse/touch down on source node
+2. Drag with visual preview line
+3. Release on target node to create connection
+4. Visual and particle feedback on success
+
+**Alternatives Considered:**
+- Click-to-select, click-to-connect (less intuitive)
+- Keyboard-based selection (poor accessibility)
+- Hover-based connections (accidental triggers)
+
+**Impact:** Defines core interaction model and input handling
+
+---
+
+### Decision 7: Progressive Difficulty Scaling
+**Date:** June 2025  
+**Decision:** Gradually increase nodes and connections while decreasing time  
+**Rationale:**
+- **Learning Curve:** Allows skill development without frustration
+- **Engagement:** Maintains challenge as players improve
+- **Retention:** Players feel progression and accomplishment
+- **Flexibility:** Algorithm can be tuned based on player data
+
+**Scaling Formula:**
+```javascript
+const nodeCount = Math.min(5 + Math.floor(level * 0.7), 12);
+const timeLimit = Math.max(45, 60 - Math.floor(level / 3) * 2);
+```
+
+**Alternatives Considered:**
+- Fixed difficulty levels (less engaging progression)
+- Player-selected difficulty (analysis paralysis)
+- Adaptive difficulty based on performance (too complex)
+
+**Impact:** Shapes long-term player experience and retention
+
+---
+
+### Decision 8: Pattern-Matching Victory Condition
+**Date:** June 2025  
+**Decision:** Players must recreate exact dotted pattern shown on screen  
+**Rationale:**
+- **Clear Objective:** No ambiguity about goals
+- **Visual Guidance:** Dotted lines provide clear instruction
+- **Scalable Complexity:** Patterns can become arbitrarily complex
+- **Immediate Feedback:** Players know progress toward completion
+
+**Victory Detection:**
+```javascript
+function checkLevelComplete() {
+  const madeConnections = gameState.connections.map(/* normalize */);
+  const targetConnections = gameState.targetPattern.map(/* normalize */);
+  return targetConnections.every(target => 
+    madeConnections.some(made => arraysEqual(made, target))
+  );
+}
+```
+
+**Alternatives Considered:**
+- Minimum spanning tree (too mathematical)
+- Creative/artistic freedom (no clear victory state)
+- Score-based completion (less satisfying)
+
+**Impact:** Defines level generation and completion logic
+
+---
+
+## Technical Architecture Decisions
+
+### Decision 9: Vanilla JavaScript Implementation
+**Date:** June 2025  
+**Decision:** Build with vanilla HTML5/JavaScript without external frameworks  
+**Rationale:**
+- **Performance:** No framework overhead, maximum control
+- **Simplicity:** No build process, immediate deployment
+- **Learning:** Deeper understanding of web technologies
+- **Maintenance:** No framework dependency updates or breaking changes
+
+**Architecture Pattern:**
+```javascript
+// Single global state object
+let gameState = { /* all game data */ };
+
+// Class-based entities
+class Node { /* node behavior */ }
+class Connection { /* connection behavior */ }
+
+// Functional game logic
+function gameLoop() { /* main update cycle */ }
+```
+
+**Alternatives Considered:**
+- React (unnecessary complexity for game)
+- Vue.js (simpler but still overhead)
+- Game frameworks (Phaser.js - too heavy for simple puzzle)
+
+**Impact:** Affects all code organization and deployment strategy
+
+---
+
+### Decision 10: Canvas 2D Rendering
+**Date:** June 2025  
+**Decision:** Use HTML5 Canvas 2D API for game graphics  
+**Rationale:**
+- **Performance:** Direct pixel control, smooth 60fps achievable
+- **Flexibility:** Complete control over rendering pipeline
+- **Browser Support:** Excellent compatibility across devices
+- **Features:** Sufficient for 2D graphics needs
+
+**Rendering Loop:**
+```javascript
+function gameLoop() {
+  // Clear canvas
+  ctx.clearRect(0, 0, canvas.width, canvas.height);
+  
+  // Draw game elements
+  drawTargetPattern();
+  gameState.connections.forEach(conn => conn.draw());
+  gameState.nodes.forEach(node => node.draw());
+  
+  requestAnimationFrame(gameLoop);
+}
+```
+
+**Alternatives Considered:**
+- WebGL (overkill for 2D puzzle game)
+- DOM manipulation (performance limitations)
+- SVG graphics (harder to animate smoothly)
+
+**Impact:** Determines rendering performance and visual capabilities
+
+---
+
+### Decision 11: Client-Side Only Architecture
+**Date:** June 2025  
+**Decision:** Build as purely client-side application with no backend  
+**Rationale:**
+- **Simplicity:** No server setup, maintenance, or costs
+- **Privacy:** No user data collection or storage
+- **Performance:** No network latency for gameplay
+- **Deployment:** Static hosting is simple and reliable
+
+**Data Storage:**
+- Game state: In-memory during session
+- Settings: localStorage (future feature)
+- Scores: localStorage (future feature)
+
+**Alternatives Considered:**
+- Backend with user accounts (unnecessary complexity)
+- Cloud save synchronization (premature optimization)
+- Multiplayer features (future consideration)
+
+**Impact:** Simplifies deployment and maintenance significantly
+
+---
+
+## User Experience Decisions
+
+### Decision 12: Mobile-First Responsive Design
+**Date:** June 2025  
+**Decision:** Design primarily for mobile devices, enhance for desktop  
+**Rationale:**
+- **Usage Patterns:** Puzzle games popular on mobile devices
+- **Touch Optimization:** Ensures excellent mobile experience
+- **Accessibility:** Larger touch targets benefit all users
+- **Market Reach:** Mobile-first approach captures broader audience
+
+**Implementation:**
+```css
+/* Mobile-first base styles */
+.game-element {
+  padding: 12px;  /* Minimum 44px touch targets */
+  font-size: 1.2rem;
+}
+
+/* Desktop enhancements */
+@media (min-width: 768px) {
+  .game-element {
+    padding: 8px;
+    font-size: 1rem;
+  }
+}
+```
+
+**Alternatives Considered:**
+- Desktop-first design (poor mobile experience)
+- Separate mobile version (maintenance overhead)
+- Mobile-only approach (limits audience)
+
+**Impact:** Influences all UI design and interaction patterns
+
+---
+
+### Decision 13: Minimal Onboarding
+**Date:** June 2025  
+**Decision:** Teach through gameplay rather than explicit tutorials  
+**Rationale:**
+- **Immediacy:** Players start playing immediately
+- **Discovery:** Learning through exploration is more engaging
+- **Simplicity:** Core mechanics are intuitive enough
+- **Accessibility:** Works for users who skip tutorials
+
+**Onboarding Elements:**
+- Clear visual instructions in welcome screen
+- Dotted line patterns provide implicit guidance
+- Simple early levels teach mechanics naturally
+- Immediate feedback reinforces correct actions
+
+**Alternatives Considered:**
+- Step-by-step tutorial (interrupts flow)
+- Video introduction (loading overhead)
+- Practice mode (unnecessary complexity)
+
+**Impact:** Affects first-time user experience and retention
+
+---
+
+## Performance Decisions
+
+### Decision 14: 60fps Target on Desktop
+**Date:** June 2025  
+**Decision:** Optimize for consistent 60fps on mid-range desktop hardware  
+**Rationale:**
+- **User Experience:** Smooth animations feel premium
+- **Competitive Advantage:** Many web games neglect performance
+- **Technical Excellence:** Demonstrates development skill
+- **Accessibility:** Works well on older hardware
+
+**Optimization Strategies:**
+- Efficient Canvas clearing and drawing
+- Throttled event handlers (mousemove, touchmove)
+- Object pooling for particles
+- Minimal DOM manipulation during gameplay
+
+**Performance Budget:**
+- Frame time: <16.67ms (60fps)
+- Memory usage: <100MB desktop, <50MB mobile
+- Load time: <3 seconds on 3G connection
+
+**Alternatives Considered:**
+- 30fps target (less smooth experience)
+- Variable framerate (inconsistent feel)
+- No performance optimization (poor user experience)
+
+**Impact:** Influences all technical implementation decisions
+
+---
+
+### Decision 15: Graceful Degradation Strategy
+**Date:** June 2025  
+**Decision:** Maintain core functionality on older devices with reduced effects  
+**Rationale:**
+- **Accessibility:** Includes users with older hardware
+- **Market Reach:** Broader device compatibility
+- **Reliability:** Consistent experience across platforms
+- **Future-Proofing:** Won't break on edge cases
+
+**Degradation Hierarchy:**
+1. Core gameplay (always preserved)
+2. UI responsiveness (maintained on all devices)
+3. Particle effects (reduced on slow devices)
+4. Visual effects (simplified if needed)
+
+**Implementation:**
+```javascript
+// Performance-based feature toggling
+if (averageFrameTime > 20) {
+  // Reduce particle count
+  particleSystem.maxParticles = Math.floor(particleSystem.maxParticles * 0.5);
+}
+```
+
+**Alternatives Considered:**
+- High-end only optimization (excludes users)
+- No degradation (breaks on slow devices)
+- Multiple versions (maintenance overhead)
+
+**Impact:** Ensures broad accessibility and device support
+
+---
+
+## Decision Review Process
+
+### Monthly Review Schedule
+Each month, review all documented decisions for:
+- **Continued Relevance:** Do decisions still make sense?
+- **Performance Impact:** Are decisions achieving intended goals?
+- **User Feedback:** Do decisions align with actual user behavior?
+- **Technical Evolution:** Have new technologies made decisions obsolete?
+
+### Decision Update Process
+When updating decisions:
+1. Document what changed and why
+2. Note impact on existing implementation
+3. Plan migration strategy if needed
+4. Update related documentation
+5. Communicate changes to stakeholders
+
+### Success Metrics
+- **User Satisfaction:** Positive feedback on design choices
+- **Performance Goals:** Meeting established benchmarks
+- **Development Velocity:** Decisions support rather than hinder progress
+- **Technical Debt:** Decisions age well without major refactoring
+
+---
+
+**Last Updated:** June 2025  
+**Next Review:** July 2025  
+**Document Owner:** Development Team
\ No newline at end of file