With conflicting objectives, it might be worth providing multiple versions. A version optimized for "the students' bottleneck on their upcoming high-stakes exam is arithmetic, not physics". A version emphasizing units - without which numbers are nonsensical - and deemphasizing numbers, down to dimensional analysis. A version emphasizing the equation's parts, and story, to provide a qualitative feel for the phenomenon.
Back when everyone was on desktop, I liked using mouseover popups. VR/AR is going to be great fun. :)
There's a style of research talk, which I think of as a "Cal Tech style", merely because the speaker has been from there the few times I've seen this. It's putting up a colorized equation, and spending the entire talk walking through its expressions. If someone knows of a good example on youtube, it might be one way to see the many layers of narrative present in an equation.
I had an "F = m a" interactive like this "A feel for: torque"[1], but I don't think it ended up online. That's a step beyond scaffolding a qualitative understanding of the phenomenon - developing a rough quantitative feel for it. [1] http://www.clarifyscience.info/part/ZoomB?v=A&p=CK6Ji&m=torq...
FWIW, scientific practice is to have a space between number and units. If you'd like them close for pedagogy, perhaps \thinspace?