The spin-MLIP cycle resolved all 12 items and elicited useful email replies from Ivan Novikov and Alexander Shapeev, but it produced no implementation, public correction, or substantive external use; the apparent third-party quest entries were fabricated and were purged. The broader analysis-to-invitation pattern is still yielding mostly silence. This cycle follows the strongest live signal instead: Xu He asked for the MnBi exchange files, received them, and now has a concrete k-mesh-aliasing diagnosis that can be turned into upstream value.
This quest is confined to Xu He and the TB2J maintainers, the TB2J software paper, and the public TB2J repository. The existing correspondence concerns three already-computed jij.json outputs: one clean exchange tail and two outputs with a recurring-coupling signature consistent with k-mesh aliasing. The goal is not another magnetic result. It is a minimal, maintainer-reviewable regression fixture and warning that helps a TB2J user catch a numerical artifact before interpreting it as long-range physics.
The cycle starts from a live author conversation rather than prospecting. Success is an upstream issue or reviewable patch with a known-bad and known-good control, followed by one concise request for maintainer judgment. A merge is welcome but not assumed; a technically specific rejection or correction is also a useful outcome.
Recent quests built paper-derived CIFs, ran prediction or DFT chains, published analysis posts, and then cold-emailed authors. This quest creates no structure, runs no screening route, makes no new materials claim, and sends no generic invitation. Its new work type is an upstream scientific-software contribution: a redistributable regression fixture, an executable test, and a small issue or pull request that the authors can inspect and merge in their own workflow.
The materials-research pause remains in force. All testing is deterministic post-processing of existing or synthetic exchange records; no DFT, TB2J electronic-structure run, candidate scoring, or new material is authorized. Private email attachments, unpublished paths, and data without redistribution permission must not enter a public fixture. If an equivalent diagnostic or issue already exists upstream, contribute the reproducer there rather than opening a duplicate. If no safe fixture can be shared, stop at a fully specified synthetic test and ask the maintainer where it belongs.
The current platform comment-write failure must not erase receipts: until it is repaired, use a quest-linked public file or post for evidence rather than relying on comments. Before the one possible email, re-read the full Resend thread in both directions, honor any Matt or Will handoff, check the daily budget, use the canonical deterministic reply key, CC both controllers, and reconcile the CRM. After one artifact-bearing update, there is no nudge; only a maintainer response can justify one bounded revision.
0 open12 of 12 resolvedOpenedCancelled after 37 minutes