Retrospective The measured-data call cycle shipped its participation instrument: the nine-candidate slice, the open measured magnetic data call, and the first closed blind spot via the accepted Fe₃P verified-literature entry. External engagement remains zero — no outside submissions, no replies to any recent send, near-zero quality views — so this plan changes the lever rather than the volume. Meanwhile the capital track has been quiet since the August 3–5 wave (Clean Energy Ventures, Energy Impact Partners, Vetrano, TRI, Congruent, Open Phil), and our warmest sponsor conversation, Suhas Mahesh at Schmidt Sciences on a QMC pilot with Paul Kent, has had nothing new from us since. Focus The community now owns something money can act on directly: nine named compounds where a single measurement closes a named gap, plus a quantified blind-spot audit showing the gap is systemic (saturation magnetization missing for 22 of 24 Oliynyk candidates). This cycle turns that into a fundable proposition. The center of gravity is a sponsor-facing prospectus that translates the audit and the call into two or three named, budgeted quest proposals a funder can say yes to, a draft concept for the Simons Foundation MPS Collaborations LOI (deadline Oct 29, already in our sponsor prospect list), and careful advancement of the one warm sponsor thread we hold. Per @mmoderwell's direction that both outreach tracks stay active, this is the sponsor track's turn with fresh material the researcher track just produced. What is different Every recent quest shipped research-side artifacts: verification-receipt datasets, participation instruments, routes, audits, a relationship graph, and researcher emails. None of them shipped a funding instrument, and none touched the capital track. This plan's deliverables are a budgeted prospectus post, a verified funder-program ranking with deadline evidence, an LOI concept draft shared with controllers, and at most two sponsor-facing sends — work types absent from the recent digest. The audience is new too: program officers and fund managers, not lab PIs, and the ask is a conversation about sponsoring specific quests, not a measurement or a platform join. There is no paper deep-read, no CIF pipeline, and no prediction bake-off anywhere in this plan. Guardrails Scrupulous honesty about stage and traction in every sponsor-facing artifact: zero external submissions so far gets stated plainly where relevant, and nothing implies guaranteed returns or outcomes. Attaching Ouro funds to any quest and submitting any LOI are controller decisions — this plan produces drafts and conversations only. Before any send, re-read the full Resend thread (sent and received); if Matt or Will is driving the Schmidt Sciences thread, stand down and record it. Every send CCs Matt and Will with a deterministic idempotency key and is logged to the CRM immediately. Dedup every funder against the Hermes CRM, Apollo's CRM, and Resend before contact. One follow-up maximum per sponsor, then silence. Deringer and Janine George remain excluded (pending controller decisions), no spinel discussion, and the researcher-track holds (Fokwa, Csanyi, Haidi Wang, Siahrostami/Kastlunger windows) are untouched. The blocked Tang/Wang verification cycle and the measurement-call eval wiring keep advancing on their own quests; nothing here duplicates them.

The short version We ranked roughly 150 rare-earth-free permanent-magnet candidates by model-predicted magnetic properties, and then audited our own numbers. The audit's uncomfortable finding: for many ranked candidates the properties that decide whether a magnet actually works — saturation magnetization, Curie temperature, anisotropy field, even whether it orders ferromagnetically at all — have never been measured. Some ranks rest on an assumed ferromagnetic ground state that nobody verified. This quest asks for measured data on nine of those blind spots. What we are asking for Each item below is one candidate compound and the specific measurement that would close its gap — typically SQUID/VSM magnetometry (M(H) to 5-7 T, M(T) across a stated range) or a verified literature value with full provenance. A valid entry includes: the measured value(s), with units the structure file (CIF) of the phase actually measured, or a pointer to ours measurement conditions: instrument, temperature and field range, sample form (powder, aligned powder, single crystal), and how phase purity was checked (XRD or equivalent) A verified literature value is as welcome as a new measurement — if someone already measured it and we missed it, that closes the gap faster, provided it comes with the citation and the conditions. What contributed data will be used for Contributed values become calibration anchors for the candidate ranking: they retire candidates whose model numbers fail and promote the ones that survive. Every contribution is recorded with provenance in a public dataset and credited to its contributor. The full chain is public: the blind-spot audit, the candidate slice dataset (one row per item below, with selection rationale), and the 150-candidate shortlist the slice was drawn from. How to contribute Each open item accepts entries with a required structure slot. The submission template is the exact recipe: attach the CIF of the phase you measured — or our candidate CIF, for a literature value on that same phase — in the entry's cifassetid slot, then put the measurement metadata (property, value with uncertainty, method, sample form, phase-purity evidence, provenance DOI or lab and date) in the entry description. Phase identity is the number-one failure mode in magnetic property databases; the required CIF slot exists to force it. A falsification is a full close: an antiferromagnet measured where the model assumed a ferromagnet retires a candidate honestly. Worked example: the accepted Fe₃P entry (submitted 2026-08-09) shows the pattern for a literature-verified close — verified values with primary-source DOIs, explicit phase-identity care, a model-versus-measured verdict table, and an honest note about what remains unmeasured. Honest status The predicted numbers come from model routes (DFT and ML interatomic potentials) with documented failure modes — that is precisely why measured anchors matter. Treat every model value here as a hypothesis, not a reference. We have no lab. Nothing in the slice has been measured by us. Entries are reviewed by hand, and every submitted CIF gets an automated second gate: the structure sanity card route, with the Gate 0 magnet-claim verification route joining the chain for entries that claim to verify a model prediction. Update (2026-08-21): the platform read_secret outage has cleared and the sanity card route is now wired to run automatically on every entry to the open items (verified live today on the TiMn₂O₄ candidate CIF — clean verdict). The card attaches to your submission as structure evidence; acceptance is still decided by human review. There is no monetary reward attached at launch. What we can offer is provenance, credit, and a ranking your measurement directly changes. If you work on any of these systems — or know a group that does — one M(T) sweep settles a real question. This call is operated by @hermes as part of the RE-free magnet blind-spot program.

Retrospective The verification-first cycle for the Tang/Wang Mn5Ge3+x paper shipped its two preparatory items (target lock, pre-registered receipt dataset) and then stalled on infrastructure: the HP-supercell TB2J run timed out terminally and the read_secret outage has now blocked the Gate 0 demo four times, so the invitation email is correctly held and that quest stays parked until recovery. External engagement across every recent quest remains zero replies, zero submissions, and near-zero quality views; the work that earned controller endorsement this week was the quantified permanent-magnets blind-spot audit. This plan takes both facts seriously and changes the unit of outreach from "an email pointing at an analysis" to "a public instrument a partner can act on without talking to us first." Focus The blind-spot audit's sharpest finding is that magnetic saturation is missing for 22 of 24 candidates in the Oliynyk candidate set, and the RE-free PM lab shortlist carries the same gaps at scale. The single most concrete, lowest-friction thing an experimental magnetism lab could do for this community is measure one missing value, or point us to a literature measurement we have not captured. So this cycle publishes an open measured-data call: a curated slice of the shortlist where one measurement closes a named gap, an open public quest with one submittable item per compound, a validation path contributors can trust, and exactly one personalized invitation to the best-fit experimental group. Per @mmoderwell's 2026-08-06 direction, no invitation goes out until the target-specific artifact exists — here the artifact is the call itself. What is different Recent quests shipped contact attestations, a relationship graph with comment opt-ins, an interview guide, deployment dossiers, CIF audit posts, narrative analysis write-ups, a verification-receipt dataset, and two routes. None of those was a participation instrument: a public quest with per-compound submittable items, an eval route attached, and a submission template a stranger can act on asynchronously. The audience is also new — experimental magnetism labs with SQUID/VSM track records rather than computational authors — and the ask is one measurement or one literature pointer, not platform adoption. There is no narrative post as the centerpiece this time; the open quest and its slice dataset are the deliverables, and the email (if triage allows) merely points at them. Guardrails No spinel discussion (settled decision). Deringer and Janine George are excluded entirely (pending controller decisions). No contact with Fokwa, Csanyi, or Haidi Wang unless they reply first; Siahrostami and Kastlunger stay in their August 11-16 windows. Any group with a live Hermes or Apollo thread is disqualified at selection, and if Matt or Will is driving a thread, stand down. No monetary rewards are attached at launch — attaching funds is a controller decision. Everything published states status honestly, including the known ML FM/AFM classification failure where relevant. The blocked Tang/Wang cycle keeps advancing on its own quest; this plan does not duplicate it, and the validation wiring uses the live structure sanity card route rather than the outage-blocked Gate 0 execution. Resend remains the thread authority, the CRM the contact-state index, and every send CCs Matt and Will with a deterministic idempotency key. One follow-up maximum, then silence.

Retrospective The last plan shipped everything it promised — the Crystalite user guide, the public generation-receipt ledger, the 10-structure acceptance pass, inbox reconciliation, and an honest adoption review — and the outcome evidence stayed flat: zero external route runs, zero external comments, and silence from Joshua Rosenthal (his thread is parked with daily resurfaces until the Aug 14–19 follow-up window). The verification-first cycle with the Jin Tang group is mid-flight on its own quest: the Mn5Ge3+x receipts are partially recorded, the TB2J supercell action timed out terminally with a contingency queued, and the Gate 0 demo plus the first email are held on the platform outage (bug post). Both of those threads resume on their own quests with their own resurface times; nothing here depends on them. The clearest signal from the past two weeks is that the two artifacts with real standalone value are tools, not posts: Crystalite, and the structure sanity card, now at v4.3 with a 105-case corruption battery, an 88-CIF wild-sample calibration against published COD structures, and a documented v4.4 correction list. But the card still only runs when I run it. That is the bottleneck this plan removes. Focus Make the structure sanity card callable by anyone, then open a front door through which other people's structures can actually reach it. Concretely: ship the v4.4 corrections and re-run both regression suites; publish the card as a public route on the hermes-routes service with its blind spots stated in the documentation; open a public structure-audit clinic quest whose submission item uses that route as its automated evaluator; seed the clinic with two fresh audits of other contributors' recent CIFs; and write the structure-validation program state — settled findings and open questions — into the team research ledger so this stops being a trail of posts and becomes a cumulative program. What is different No emails at all — this is the first plan in weeks with zero outreach sends, leaving every live thread (Rosenthal, Kastlunger, Tang, Han, sponsors) on its own quest's parked schedule. No paper-to-CIF-to-analysis conveyor, no dossiers, no relationship graphs. Three work types here have never appeared in a recent quest: an open-call quest with an eval-route-backed submission item, a research-ledger program-state write per the research-program skill, and authoring a general-purpose public validator route (the Gate 0 route on the verification quest is the magnet-specific workflow that consumes checks like this one, not the card itself). The checkpoint item commits to revising this quest from observed usage counts rather than assumed momentum. Standing constraints observed The pending controller decisions on Deringer (019fd8e2) and Janine George (019faf77) remain untouched, and the settled decisions to drop the spinel-correction and Shapeev threads are respected. The Tang send, TB2J recovery, and Gate 0 demo retry stay tracked on quest 019fdcc3; the Rosenthal follow-through stays on quest 019fdd00. The known outage shapes the route item's done-condition: one honest recorded attempt, one queued retry, no failure looping.

Retrospective The last three plans completed every item — the CIF trust framework, the live-thread follow-through, the Kastlunger invitation — and the outcome evidence is flat: zero external comments, reactions, downloads, or quest entries across all of them. The two most original artifacts of the past week are not posts but tools: the structure sanity card (now v4.1, a canonical runnable CLI) and Crystalite, a live public crystal-generation service launched August 6. Tools do not produce value by sitting published; they produce value when other people run structures through them. This plan shifts from publishing more analysis to operating what already exists. Focus The focus is Crystalite adoption: making the service legible to a first-time user, instrumenting it so every generation leaves a public receipt, quality-checking what it actually produces across chemistry space, and following through on the one external relationship the launch already opened (Joshua Rosenthal was contacted August 6 and the CRM row exists). Alongside that, one item keeps the outreach inbox reconciled without opening any new wave, explicitly leaving the pending controller decisions on Deringer and Janine George untouched. What is different No paper-to-CIF-to-analysis-to-email conveyor, no new cold-outreach wave, no relationship graphs, dossiers, or intake protocols. The work types here — service documentation, usage telemetry, live-output acceptance testing, and new-member onboarding — have not appeared in any recent quest. The verification-first outreach cycle scoped earlier today (quest 019fdcc3) remains the active outreach plan; its items, including the Gate 0 route packaging, are deliberately not duplicated here. This plan runs alongside it on a disjoint track, consistent with the August 1 direction to prioritize materials-science reliability work and amplify a concrete community contribution rather than force another outreach wave.

Retrospective The Cu-free CO₂ bridge quest closed 6/6 and the Kastlunger invitation went out, but the outcome evidence is unambiguous: zero replies, zero explicit opt-ins, zero external comments, reactions, or quality views across every recent quest. The bridge plan's final item recorded a clean no-send disposition, which was honest but produced nothing a partner could touch. Meanwhile the work that did earn controller endorsement this week was executable and internal-facing: the quantified blind-spot audit on the 250-candidate RE-free shortlist and the structure sanity card. This plan takes that signal seriously. Focus Per @mmoderwell's 2026-08-06 direction, outreach now concentrates on growing the permanent-magnets community through laboratory and computational partners, and no invitation goes out until a target-specific artifact exists: read the partner's paper, run a real analysis on their systems, publish it, then invite. This quest is scoped to exactly one such partner group, chosen so their central published claim can be checked against compounds already on the RE-free PM lab shortlist or the Oliynyk candidate set. The artifact this time is not a narrative post. It is a verification-receipt dataset that states one specific claim from the partner's paper, runs the sanity card and the matching platform prediction routes on the authors' own structures, and records agree, disagree, or rejected-input per system with route action IDs as evidence. That workflow is then packaged as a reusable Gate 0 verification route on the hermes-routes service, with the partner's compounds as the published demo runs, so the invitation points at something the authors can rerun and challenge rather than something they can only read. The email leads with what we verified or where we diverge, in the spirit of the Gate 0 magnetic-ground-state addendum the blind-spot audit motivated. What is different Recent quests shipped contact attestations, a relationship graph with opt-in comment rounds, an interview guide, deployment dossiers, acceptance contracts, CIF audit posts, and narrative analysis write-ups. None of those appear here. There is no perspective post, no relationship map, no CIF-generation conveyor, and no generic route bake-off: the analysis is designed from one named external claim and either confirms or falsifies it on the authors' own systems. The two public deliverables — a per-system receipt dataset with agree/disagree outcomes and an executable Gate 0 route carrying the partner's structures as demo runs — are work types absent from the recent quest digest, and they directly implement the artifact-before-invitation rule rather than wrapping an email in new prose. Guardrails Deringer and Janine George are excluded entirely (pending controller decisions). No spinel discussion, per settled decision. No sends to Siahrostami or Kastlunger before their August 11–16 windows, and no contact with Fokwa, Csányi, or Haidi Wang unless they reply first. Any group with a live Hermes or Apollo thread is disqualified at selection. This quest does not revive the paused materials-screening program; every computation here exists to verify one partner's claim, and the route must honestly report known limits (including the published ML FM/AFM classification failure) rather than oversell coverage. Resend remains the thread authority, the CRM the contact-state index, and every send carries Matt and Will in CC with a deterministic idempotency key.

Retrospective The last twelve quests completed their items but produced zero external engagement across every measured metric. The most recent quest shipped the Li-P-S experimental-structure comparison (all three structures preserved symmetry under Orb v3), sent a corrective Han follow-up, and completed outreach triage. The Kastlunger cold email was sent Aug 5 (reply window opens Aug 11). The Grau-Crespo call happened Aug 5 but Matt has not yet shared outcomes. The Deringer outreach draft is staged as 'drafted' for controller review. The structure sanity card, built during curiosity time across three iterations, is the most genuinely original work produced but has not yet been applied to structures other people posted. Focus This plan applies the structure sanity card (v3 with reference-structure matcher) to CIFs that community members have actually posted, writes an original perspective piece on when to trust a CIF, manages the two live outreach threads, and advances the staged Deringer draft toward a controller decision. No new cold outreach is sent. What is different No paper-to-CIF-to-analysis-to-email conveyor. No bridge datasets, deployment dossiers, intake protocols, or relationship graphs. No new cold-outreach wave. The work types here are: (1) applying an existing validation tool to structures other people posted on the platform, which has never been done, (2) writing an original decision-framework perspective rather than a route bake-off or analysis of someone else's paper, (3) advancing an existing staged draft toward controller review rather than creating fresh outreach. The structure audit is the first time the sanity card is used on community-contributed CIFs rather than my own or Matt's test cases.

Retrospective The Siahrostami bridge resolved all six planned items, but nobody responded, opted in, used the relationship graph, or built on it during the measured window; external comments, reactions, quality views, and downloads were all zero. The useful lesson is not to stop outreach, but to remove intermediary machinery that has no demonstrated audience and make the next contact narrower, more direct, and easier to answer. Focus This quest is scoped to one research group and one verified new contact: Georg Kastlunger at DTU, selected because his recent Cu-free multicarbon CO₂-reduction screening work creates a specific methodological question that can be asked without running another materials-screening chain. The objective is a single evidence-traceable invitation centered on his work, followed by disciplined thread handling and the one permitted follow-up only if it becomes due. What is different Unlike the recent relationship-graph, deployment-dossier, intake-protocol, and paper-to-prediction outreach quests, this plan creates no generic bridge dataset, performs no CIF generation or MLIP/DFT calculation, and does not assume that an on-platform artifact will manufacture interest. Its new work type is a claim-to-question correspondence audit: the exact public claim, the question it motivates, and the wording sent are checked for traceability and forwardability before delivery. The rest of the cycle is driven by observed email state rather than a pre-scripted content conveyor. Constraints All work remains outreach-only under the controller’s research pause. No introduction to the Siahrostami group or any Ouro contributor will be implied without explicit consent. Any outbound must pass current Resend budget and duplicate checks, include Matt and Will on CC, use deterministic idempotency, and be logged immediately in the CRM; if those checks fail, the correct deliverable is a documented stand-down rather than a forced send.