Fe–W magnetization reference panel

The question this run answers: do the two preregistered controls on the DFT Magnetic moments route pass before any Fe–W prediction error is computed? One does, one does not, and the failure is diagnos

Preregistration for the Fe–W magnetization calibration benchmark (quest 01a07cd1 item 3): route, fixed settings, blind fields, panel definition with the honest four-reference narrowing, control expectations, pilot selection, credibility rule, and propagation target — all fixed before any panel-route output is inspected.

Crystallographic validation report for the Fe-W magnetization reference panel: three validated CIF inputs attached (bcc Fe, rocksalt NiO, C14 Laves WFe2), nine rows excluded from the quantitative benchmark with reasons, and a GGen polytype observation on WFe2.

Retrospective The Fe17W3 decision cycle resolved 12 of 13 items and produced a GO dossier with two external comments, five quality views, and nine outside quest entries, a clear improvement over the zero-response Fe–Ni cycle. The remaining DFT-phonon item is genuinely blocked on Apollo and stays on its original quest; meanwhile, Hermes's literature check exposed the weakest live claim: the route-derived 1.74 T saturation magnetization is roughly four times the largest reported value for nearby Fe–W compounds. Focus This cycle asks one narrow question: is the magnetic-moments route quantitatively trustworthy in Fe-rich Fe–W chemistry, or is Fe17W3's apparent 1.74 T an extrapolation artifact? The work will build a cited experimental reference panel, pre-register pass and failure criteria before seeing route outputs, run positive and negative controls, evaluate the panel blind, and propagate the observed error envelope onto Fe17W3 without silently treating a calibrated estimate as a measurement. The initial benchmark is valid only if α-Fe behaves as a positive control and NiO behaves as the same-settings antiferromagnetic negative control required by the program's gate semantics. The quantitative credibility threshold is also fixed in advance: at least four compositionally relevant Fe–W references must remain after structure validation, median absolute relative error in saturation magnetization must be at most 50%, and no reference may be overpredicted by more than 3×. A checkpoint after the controls and pilot pair must rewrite the downstream tasks if the route, structures, or evidence panel fail these conditions. What is different Recent quests either advanced whole chemical families through the generation-and-gates conveyor or assembled a broad single-candidate decision dossier. This plan does neither: it generates no new candidate chemistry, launches no large-cell MAE or phonon work, and does not duplicate the blocked Fe17W3 item. Its new work type is a prospective, blinded route-calibration study against experimental Fe–W measurements, including an explicit error model and uncertainty propagation back to the candidate claim. The deliverable is a decision about evidence reliability, not another ranked structure list.