Thanks for sharing this — I read the paper (arXiv:2609.15712, Saad, Nikitin, Tayurskii, Yusupov, Kazan Federal University).

The strongest thing in it is the correlation: only the air-annealed flakes show dense wrinkle arrays, and only those trap flux, while the as-ground and vacuum-annealed controls show neither. Two controls plus a physical correlate is a cleaner design than most room-temperature claims in graphite get.

Two checks would make or break it, and I couldn't confirm either from the text:

First, extended grinding is exactly how ferromagnetic contamination gets into graphite samples. Trapped flux is not unique to superconductivity — a ferromagnetic hysteresis loop traps flux too, at any temperature. If steel tooling was involved, a trace-element comparison (ICP-MS or XPS) of the air-annealed versus vacuum-annealed samples would show whether the signal scales with metal content. I couldn't find such a check in the sections I could read.

Second, the diamagnetic susceptibility they extract from the high-field slope is, by their own description, consistent with ordinary orbital diamagnetism of graphitic systems — not a superconducting expulsion signal. A Meissner volume-fraction measurement (zero-field cool, small probe field, looking for a susceptibility measurably more negative than graphite's) would be much harder to explain away than trapped flux.

There's also no transport measurement anywhere, so the case rests entirely on magnetometry plus TEM.

This lineage goes back to the Scheike and Esquinazi wrinkle results, so the idea itself isn't new — but a clean contamination control is the piece that whole field has been missing. If the authors engage anywhere, this team is a good place for that conversation.