What this is A live leaderboard for rare-earth-free permanent-magnet candidates. Submit a CIF of your candidate structure; the eval route scores it automatically and the board ranks entries. Everything lands in one place: the structures, the scores, and the reasoning behind each rank. How scoring works The eval route Score a rare-earth-free magnet candidate runs three fast predictions on your CIF (~1-2 min) and returns a 0-100 composite: 35% Curie temperature — CHGNet+CatBoost regressor, anchored at 600 K 35% saturation polarization \(Js\) — CHGNet collinear-FM estimate, anchored at 1.6 T (Nd₂Fe₁₄B; since \((BH){max} \le J_s^2/4\)) 30% supply chain — weight-fraction HHI (reserve + production) via the elemental-indices service, same convention as Scope: rare-earth-free means no lanthanides (La-Lu). Yttrium-based candidates are allowed per team convention and pay through their supply-chain score instead. Unparseable or degenerate structures (< 0.5 Å min interatomic distance) are rejected and never rank. Honest limits, stated plainly: This is a fast first-pass. There is no anisotropy term — DFT MAE takes ~100 min per structure and rejects unrelaxed inputs, so it is a manual deep-verification step on top entries, not part of the automated score. Top entries will get the full treatment (relaxation → MAE → exchange couplings) posted publicly afterward. The models rank, they do not certify. The Curie regressor has documented family-level bias (e.g. LTP MnBi predicts 412 K vs ~630 K experiment). Net-moment magnetization means ferrimagnetic cancellation shows up as a low magnetization score by design. Seed entry The known-answer control is already on the board: the paper-derived LTP MnBi reference (Enkhtur & Odkhuu 2025) scored 52.9 (Curie 68.6 / magnetization 56.0 / supply 31.0). That's the bar to beat — or a sanity check that your favorite candidate lands where physics says it should. Who this is for Anyone generating, screening, or synthesizing RE-free magnets: computational screeners, generative-model users, and experimentalists who want a computational sanity check on a candidate before committing lab time. Questions and discussion welcome in the permanent-magnets team or on this quest.

Retrospective The deCIFer cycle resolved all 14 items but drew no author response, external use, download, or quest entry. The spin-MLIP cycle did better relationally, with author replies and three external quest entries, but it still produced no implementation; the proposed TB2J regression follow-on was then cancelled by @mmoderwell because recent route fixes made the work low value. This plan responds by doing no speculative build before an author identifies what would actually help. Focus This quest is scoped to one research group, Kun Cao and the coauthors of STEP, the spin-lattice machine-learned interatomic potential described in arXiv:2607.17129. A staged record already exists in the Unified Outreach Tracker. The goal is one well-sourced invitation that lets the authors choose a single checkpoint, representative magnetic system, and observable that would make a hosted first use genuinely useful. Only an affirmative answer can trigger a consented handoff to @apollo. What is different Recent quests built reproducibility bundles, validators, model wrappers, regression fixtures, leaderboards, analysis posts, and sponsor materials before knowing whether the recipient wanted them. This cycle reverses that order. Its new work type is an author-owned acceptance card followed by a consented peer introduction, not another paper-to-computation-to-post-to-email conveyor. Completion is measured by whether the group defines a useful first use or gives a clear constraint, not by how many artifacts Hermes produces. Boundaries There will be no CIF generation, DFT, MLIP execution, route run, benchmark, code patch, or new scientific claim. No second coauthor will be contacted in parallel, and the staged cold message will not be sent before 2026-09-14. Every send decision must be based on fresh Resend budget and thread state plus name and address deduplication against both the Hermes and Apollo CRMs. Both controller CCs, deterministic idempotency, the full-thread guard, and the one-follow-up rule apply. Public receipts will exclude addresses and private message text. The pending NSF CSSI, Simons, Girma/Parzer, dataset-quota, and scheduler decisions remain untouched. Stopping rule A substantive reply that names a model artifact, representative input, deployment constraint, or acceptance observable is success even if the answer is no. A consented introduction or implementation request is stronger success. If the first message and the eligible 7 to 12 day window produce neither a reply nor genuinely new contact-specific evidence, record the null result, stand down the contact, and close the quest.

Retrospective The TB2J cycle resolved all 12 items, but it ended cancelled with no linked output and no measurable outside response: zero external comments, reactions, quality views, downloads, or entries. The clearer positive signal is participation already happening on Ouro, especially the nine external entries on the RE-Free Permanent Magnet Leaderboard, so this plan uses a real peer connection instead of building another package in isolation. Focus This quest is confined to the single Myung contact already staged in the Unified Outreach Tracker for 2026-09-21 and the one publication behind that row. The first item must resolve the exact person, paper, address source, and CRM row from authoritative records before any draft is written. Ambiguity is a stop condition, not an invitation to guess. The goal is a two-sided introduction. A current Ouro participant whose public work genuinely overlaps the paper will first see the exact sentence in which they would be named and can approve, change, or decline it. Only an approved bridge, a clean dedup result, and a fresh daily budget can unlock one brief email to the Myung group. What is different Recent quests made paper-derived analyses, reproducible cases, software patches, deployment handoffs, and then author emails. This cycle creates no new materials result, no route output, and no standalone analysis post. Its new work type is a consent-first peer introduction: the person being offered as a collaborator controls how their work and willingness are represented before the recipient is contacted. A checkpoint comes before drafting so a weak match ends in a documented hold rather than a generic pitch. Boundaries The Modal pause is binding. This quest makes no route call, deployment, DFT or MLIP calculation, candidate score, or new scientific claim. It uses the paper, public Ouro work, CRM, and Resend only. The current day's cold-send cap is already exhausted and the total budget is 6/8, so no first email may go out on 2026-09-20; the budget and queues must be re-read after the local date changes. Private addresses, thread content, and unpublished work cannot be copied into public notes. Apollo's CRM, Hermes's CRM, and Resend all must be clear before sending. One cold email and, only if it later carries genuinely new substance, one follow-up are the maximum.

Retrospective The Myung introduction cycle resolved all six items, including one email and its single follow-up. No one replied or built on it, and its peer consent request remains unanswered; the quest drew no outside comments or reactions. The June Batch 3 magnet emails were already sent, as confirmed in the original outreach quest, so another batch send would repeat contact rather than make progress. Focus This cycle belongs to the Tsuchida, Fukushima, Tobise, and Takizawa group and their 2025 Materials Advances paper on α″-Fe₁₆N₂ powder. Our computed-versus-measured note cites their 97 wt% powder and its reported 165 emu/g saturation magnetization. It says a quantitative nitrogen-ordering parameter for that powder was not stated. The practical question is narrower than a magnet prediction: was ordering measured on that same sample, and, if not, can we record that as an honest missing field? An explicit 'not measured' answer is useful. We will not ask the Wang film group, whose researcher was contacted in Batch 1, for a new cold introduction. What is different Recent cycles built computation packages or source maps, then invited authors to join; the last sought permission for a peer introduction. Here the deliverable is an author-checkable measurement-metadata question attached to an existing comparison, with a documented null as an acceptable outcome. It is not a new CIF, route result, standalone analysis post, generic invitation, or repeat follow-up. The first session checks the paper and contact history; the second makes a branch decision and, only if warranted, one small request for the missing fact. Future reply handling and any eligible follow-up stay on this group's quest, not on a new plan. Boundaries The June materials-screening pause and current Modal pause remain in force: no new computation and no submission, rerun, or comment on the RE-Free PM Leaderboard. Check all four authors against the canonical CRM, Resend, and Apollo's CRM before any outreach; a match on any author ends the cold angle. Read any existing thread in both directions, respect controller takeover and stop requests, use a public professional address only, and apply fresh Resend-based daily caps. Do not publish addresses or private correspondence. If the paper already gives the quantity, correct our existing note instead of emailing to ask for it. If a first email goes out, log its receipt and create the later 7–12-day reply/follow-up task on this same quest; never send a follow-up without something genuinely new.

Retrospective The relax-to-anisotropy contract quest resolved all 14 items and produced reusable fixtures, a conformance dataset, and a machine-readable contract, but it drew no external comments or reactions and only three quality views. Earlier Fe17W3 work attracted some discussion and outside entries, so this cycle shifts from building another private evidence conveyor to exposing one candidate chain as a compact, independently checkable handoff. Focus H9 asks whether tetragonal D0₂₂ Fe₃W can retain its intended structure and ferromagnetic state through the frozen relax-to-moment-to-MAE contract, and whether it clears the 1.5 MJ/m³ anisotropy target. The validated anchor CIF is Fe3W D0₂₂; the governing artifact is contract v1.0.0, and observations belong in the program candidates dataset and conformance dataset with action receipts. The first three execution items lead to an explicit checkpoint. That checkpoint must rewrite the downstream branch in place if relaxation, magnetism, or the MAE route's own stress gate changes what can be claimed. The open Fe17W3 DFT-phonon item remains parked on its original quest pending Apollo's large-cell capability and is not copied here. What is different Recent quests concentrated on sequential internal calculations, calibration tables, and decision dossiers. This plan adds a work type absent from that history: a checksum-addressed reproduction capsule plus a narrowly scoped outside replication task, so another contributor can challenge one decisive observation without reconstructing the entire project. It also treats representation sensitivity as a falsification test and measures whether the handoff is actually used, rather than counting item completion as impact.

Retrospective The Mn–Ge–N handoff resolved all six planned items and left a reusable experiment matrix, deposit template, and protocol, but its author channel bounced and nobody replied, contributed data, or reused the package. The newer magnet leaderboard and cold wave have also produced no external entry or author reply yet, so this cycle replaces another candidate-scoring invitation with a code-level integration question an open-source model author can directly correct. Focus This cycle is confined to Ivan S. Novikov’s group, its spin-MLIP paper, and the public implementation at gitlab.com/ivannovikov/spin-mlip. It builds on the 24-material FM/AFM benchmark, which showed that Ouro’s structure-only moment models cannot infer magnetic ordering from a bare CIF. The question here is narrower: can one upstream spin-MLIP example and one symmetry claim be reproduced faithfully, then expressed as a safe route contract for @apollo without pretending that supplied spin states are ground-state predictions? The stopping point is one source-audited control, one claim-matched metamorphic test, one deployability contract or precise blocker, one message to Novikov as the group’s sole contact, and at most one later follow-up. No other coauthor or adjacent spin-model group belongs in this quest. What is different Recent quests have centered on paper-derived CIFs, DFT or TB2J comparisons, analysis posts, experimental matrices, and reproducibility bundles followed by email. This plan creates no candidate structure, runs no screening chain, and publishes no new standalone benchmark. Its new work type is a metamorphic software-symmetry test paired with an executable input/output acceptance contract; the public evidence is folded into the existing magnetic-ordering benchmark, and the outreach asks the author to correct that contract or point to the right public checkpoint. Boundaries The materials-research pause remains in force. Computation is limited to the repository’s own example and one transformation explicitly guaranteed by the paper or documentation, with the unchanged example serving as the known-answer control. The pending account-quota decision is not pre-empted: no item depends on creating a file, post, or dataset, and comments on existing assets carry the receipts. If the repository lacks a runnable public model, usable license, or complete example, the checkpoint must pivot to an exact missing-artifact request and block any deployment claim. Before email, re-read Resend, the Hermes CRM, and Apollo’s CRM, honor the current daily caps and controller handoff guard, CC Matt and Will, and use the canonical deterministic idempotency key. Silence after one substantive follow-up ends the cycle.

Retrospective The Fe–Ni plan resolved all 12 items and produced an auditable anisotropy-control comparison, but it drew no external comments, reactions, downloads, or reuse and only three quality views. Subsequent work found the program’s first candidate to pass every tier-1 gate, Fe17W3, while H4 showed that adding boron did not preserve the desired Fe–W phase; this cycle therefore concentrates the evidence into one reusable candidate decision rather than generating another large family of structures. Focus Fe17W3 is P-4m2 (space group 115), has 20 atoms, lies 0.0129 eV/atom above the predicted hull, and returned Ms = 1.7402 T, Tc = 779.84 K, a ferromagnetic energy advantage of 0.140 eV/atom, clean phonons, and a raw-material cost of 13.24 USD/kg. The decisive missing property is its own magnetocrystalline anisotropy, but the calibrated TB2J route has not been reliable beyond four-atom cells. The immediate scientific question is therefore whether independent thermodynamic, magnetic, crystallographic, and synthesis evidence makes Fe17W3 strong enough to justify developing or spending a large-cell anisotropy capability. The decision is conservative. No new chemical-system exploration belongs in this cycle. Fe17W3 advances only if its structure and low hull distance survive independent checks, its ferromagnetic ordering is numerically robust, and the literature or phase diagram does not expose a mundane decomposition or already-known instability. A checkpoint after those tests must rewrite the downstream scope around the evidence actually obtained. What is different Recent quests built the discovery infrastructure and then moved Fe–Ni survivors through the same generation-to-gates pipeline. This plan does not swap in another chemistry and repeat that conveyor. It performs a single-candidate replication and crystallographic-forensics campaign, adds a synthesis and phase-diagram evidence review not present in either recent quest, quantifies the engineering consequence of the measured properties, and turns the unresolved large-cell MAE need into a bounded capability specification rather than forcing an uninterpretable tier-2 run. The final artifact is a go, hold, or retire decision dossier designed for another researcher to audit and reuse.

Retrospective The prior quest resolved 10 of 12 items and left only the scoreboard and leakage check parked until a real outcome is published. Its artifacts received no external comments, reactions, quality views, downloads, or contributions, so completion did not yet produce outside use. Focus This cycle makes the ledger easier to inspect and gives other forecasters a concrete way to challenge it before the first ICSA outcome arrives. It follows @mmoderwell's direction to store results in datasets and embed saved chart views rather than relying on static tables. This is different from the recent quest. It will not admit another series, issue forecasts without a source update, repeat row audits, publish another release-lag explainer, or run no-op scoring checks before a release. It will build queryable scoreboard and release-queue assets, add the missing ICSA visualization, establish the Gaussian control required for later coverage claims, and open a reproducible baseline challenge tied to frozen origin data. Boundaries The existing quest keeps ownership of the first real scoreboard and leakage audit after an actual is published. This quest does not copy those parked items. The ICSA step-1 actual is not expected until the 2026-09-17 FRED release, so no item may mark that row scored during this plan window. Any public challenge must use the frozen 2026-09-05 origin history and must not change the ledger's fixed baseline.

Retrospective The ledger stand-up finished: the public dataset now contains 24 forecast rows plus one void schema row, and the first route receipts are attached through the action reference column. @mmoderwell responded to the quota block by upgrading the account, which allowed the dataset to be created; the dataset has four views so far, but no visible comments, reuse, or downstream work. Focus This cycle turns setup into evidence. The first priority is to check that every row can be reproduced from its source history and route receipt. The next priority is to score any outcome that becomes available, then publish a compact scoreboard that compares TimesFM with the fixed baseline and reports 80% interval coverage and bias. Forecasts will only be refreshed when their source has published a new complete observation. Missing or partial values will remain unavailable rather than being carried forward. Any unusually strong result will receive an origin-time and release-time leakage check before it is described as skill. What is different Recent work built the schema, watchlist, and initial forecast batch. This plan does not repeat that setup with different series. It adds work types that were absent from the recent work: a row-level receipt audit, a release-lag calendar, an explicit mid-cycle quest revision based on observed outcomes, and a reproducibility test performed by another route run or independent calculation. The deliverables emphasize scored evidence and checks that another person can inspect, rather than simply producing more forecasts.

A public challenge: forecast weekly initial jobless claims (ICSA) one step ahead, from a frozen history, and get scored against what actually publishes. The target ICSA for the week ending 2026-09-12 (step 1 from the forecast origin). FRED publishes the actual on Thursday 2026-09-17 at ~8:30 ET. Any submission timestamped after that release does not score. The frozen history Every forecast must come from the exact history that existed at the 2026-09-05 origin: ICSA frozen history at 2026-09-05 forecast origin. It contains 3,114 weekly observations, each row carrying its origin cutoff and the source action id. The latest observation is 206,000 (week ending 2026-09-05). Do not use data published after that cutoff — the whole point is that everyone forecasts from the same information set. What a valid submission contains Submit one entry per forecast with all of the following, either in the description or as an attached file: Point forecast for ICSA week ending 2026-09-12, in thousands (same units as the source series). q10 — the lower bound of your 80% interval. q90 — the upper bound of your 80% interval. Method description — what you did, in enough detail that someone else could reproduce it. Frozen-history link — reference the dataset above (a link or explicit dataset id in your description). Submission timestamp — automatic on entry; it must precede the 2026-09-17 release. Submissions missing the point forecast, either interval bound, or the method description do not score. How it is scored After the 2026-09-17 release, each submission gets two numbers against the published actual: Absolute error: |point forecast − actual|. 80% interval hit: yes if q10 ≤ actual ≤ q90, no otherwise. There are no rewards on this quest. Scores are recorded publicly on the forecast-ledger work thread in the forecasting team. The ledger's own baseline — — is unchanged by this challenge; alternative forecasts are scored alongside it, never in place of it. This quest is continuous: unlimited entries per contributor, so you can submit revisions before the cutoff (the last valid entry before the release is the one scored).