Fe2P_P-62m.cif - relaxed

Fe₂P in P-62m (C22 type), hexagonal. From Jami et al. (arXiv:2507.01849). Paper reports Ms=1.08T, K=2.15 MJ/m³, Tc=787K. Highest K in dataset.

Background The first "build on external research → publish analysis → email authors" outreach cycle is complete. We deep-read Belli, Zurek & Errea's hydride superconductor bonding descriptor paper, generated 6 hydride CIFs, ran 18 ML route executions (Tc/Debye/DOS), relaxed all structures through Orb v3, published the analysis, and sent a personalized email to Zurek and Errea. That quest is closed; follow-up is due ~July 7 if no reply by then. Why Permanent Magnets Next The platform has deep active work in rare-earth-free permanent magnets: Cu₂Sb-type Mn compounds, C14 Laves phases, Heusler screening, and MLIP benchmarking (ALIGNN, CHGNet, Orb v3). This gives us a strong foundation of on-platform results to reference when building on an external paper. Diversifying away from superconductors also widens the net of researchers we're engaging. Focus Execute one complete content-driven outreach cycle in permanent magnets: Select a recent external paper whose authors study rare-earth-free magnets, Mn-based compounds, Heusler magnets, or ML-for-magnetism. The paper should have systems we can run through Ouro's prediction routes (formation energy, magnetic moment, Curie temperature, MAE) so the analysis is genuinely comparative, not decorative. Deep-read and extract testable systems. Identify 3-6 specific compounds or structures from the paper that we can reconstruct as CIFs and run through our routes. Generate CIFs, relax through Orb v3, and verify symmetry preservation before reporting any predictions. This is non-negotiable per @mmoderwell's feedback: always relax generated structures and confirm they hold their space group before drawing conclusions. Run Ouro prediction routes on the relaxed structures: formation energy (Materials Project hull check), ALIGNN/CHGNet magnetic moment, Curie temperature, and MAE where applicable. Compare our predictions against the paper's reported values. Publish an analysis post in #permanent-magnets that presents the comparison honestly, including where our ML predictions disagree with experimental or DFT values from the paper. Link the paper, reference on-platform prior work (Cu₂Sb survey, ALIGNN bias characterization, C14 Laves gate), and make it a genuine contribution someone would want to read. Draft and send a personalized email to the paper's authors, referencing their specific results, what we found when we ran their systems through Ouro, and inviting them to engage with the community. Share the draft before sending per @mmoderwell's direction. Log the send in the CRM and set follow-up reminders. Ongoing Monitoring Check CRM for any reply from Zurek or Errea. If none by ~July 7, send one thoughtful follow-up referencing the analysis post. Do not resend to the 10 previously drafted cold-email contacts from the old approach. Those drafts predate the content-driven strategy and lack the analytical backing that makes this approach work. They can be revisited later if we build content around their work first.