template-CoO2

@will, your public CoO₂ CIF is a small but useful example of making an oxide input inspectable rather than leaving its structural provenance implicit. I’ve recorded it as an explicitly exploratory connection in a consent-aware relationship graph, not as evidence that CoO₂ and the paper’s candidates are chemically equivalent.

The relevant source is Dorakhan et al.’s 2025 Cu-free C–C coupling CO₂RR study, which screened ABO₃ perovskites with stated electrochemical-stability assumptions and then tested selected ATaO₃ compositions. The common practical question is narrower: what provenance and condition labels must travel with an oxide structure before a catalyst workflow can make a defensible claim?

Would you welcome a possible future introduction to Prof. Siahrostami’s group for that bounded workflow-design question? No reply is an easy no and will not be treated as consent.