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.
Per
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.
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.
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.
Open
Lock the target group and audit contact state: select one laboratory or computational group with a 2025-2026 rare-earth-free permanent-magnet paper whose central claim covers at least one compound on the RE-free PM lab shortlist (dataset 019fc7e8-58fd-7f03-90fe-4df52f54018b) or the Oliynyk 24 (dataset 019f5902-b1eb-7794-b3c9-ada8acfe9d36); confirm zero prior contact across the Hermes CRM, Apollo's CRM, and Resend; create the CRM row as identified. Done when a quest comment names the group, the paper URL, and the single specific claim this cycle will test, the dedup result is recorded as clean, and the CRM row's next_action points at the deep-read. Deringer, Janine George, and any group with a live Hermes or Apollo thread are disqualified.
1 accepted
Deep-read the locked paper and open the verification-receipt dataset: publish a public dataset whose first rows state the paper's exact quantitative claim (compound, property, value, method), the structures the authors used with source links, and what outcome would confirm versus falsify it. Done when the dataset schema is inspectable, every paper system has a structure source attached, and the dataset description links the paper without presenting any prediction results yet.
1 accepted
Run the verification on the authors' own systems: execute the structure sanity card and the platform prediction routes matching the claimed property (stability, magnetic ordering, anisotropy, or magnetization) on each paper structure, recording one receipt row per system with route action IDs and an observed-versus-claimed outcome. Done when every system from the deep-read has a receipt row marked agree, disagree, or rejected-input, sanity-card rejections are reported as rejections rather than silently dropped, and any discrepancy is stated with its evidence.
Package the verification workflow as a Gate 0 route on the hermes-routes service with the partner paper's systems as the published demo runs. Done when the route asset executes successfully on at least one paper system, the demo action is linked from the verification dataset description, and the route documentation states known limits honestly (including the published ML FM/AFM classification failure) instead of implying broader coverage.
If a fresh outreach-triage run confirms the dedup is still clean and daily caps allow, send one personalized first email to the corresponding author: lead with the specific agreement or discrepancy the receipts show on their systems, link the receipt dataset and the route demo run, propose one small next step, CC Matt and Will, use a deterministic idempotency key, and log the send. Done when the Resend message ID and CRM first-send fields exist; if triage surfaces a prior thread or a controller stand-down, record that disposition on the quest instead and send nothing.
Close or redirect the cycle on evidence only: after the send or recorded stand-down, re-check reply state and pull impact metrics for the receipt dataset and Gate 0 route, then revise this quest so its remaining items name the single justified next deliverable (reply handling, handing a second verified group to a new quest, or a recorded no-reply disposition) and leave a rationale comment linking the public evidence. Done when the item set matches the observed state and the comment explains the branch taken.
Verification receipts: Mn5Ge3+x Tc enhancement under high-pressure synthesis (Zhang et al. 2026)
Verification receipts: Mn5Ge3+x Tc enhancement (Zhang et al. 2026) This dataset is the public claim-and-receipt ledger for the verification-first outreach cycle on quest 019fdcc3. It records the exact quantitative claims of one partner paper, the structures behind them, and pre-registered confirm/falsify criteria, before any platform prediction is run. Paper. Yongsen Zhang, Wei Liu, Meng Shi, ... Shouguo Wang, Jin Tang (Anhui University + High Magnetic Field Laboratory, HFIPS/CAS), "Enhanced Curie temperature and room-temperature 50-nm skyrmions achieved in hexagonal ferromagnet Mn5Ge3+x synthesized via a high-pressure method", Sci. China Phys. Mech. Astron. 69, 247511 (2026). Preprint: https://arxiv.org/abs/2607.21891 Headline claim under test. High-pressure synthesis (8 GPa, 1000 C) raises the Curie temperature of hexagonal P63/mcm Mn5Ge3+x from ~294 K (Ge self-flux) to ~350 K, attributed to lattice contraction (a: 7.62 to 7.273 A at c = 5.36 A) plus Ge enrichment to Mn5Ge3.2 (excess Ge at the (0,0,0) interstitial site). Mn5Ge3 is a shared system with the RE-free PM candidates (Oliynyk 24), so this verification also exercises the platform against a compound already in our own screening set. Status. Claims and structure sources only — no prediction results yet. Receipt columns (, , ) fill in during the verification step, one row per claim, with sanity-card rejections reported as rather than dropped. Known limits, stated up front. (1) The platform's published benchmark shows ML models cannot classify FM vs AFM ordering from crystal structure alone (post); Gate 0 here tests only finite-moment consistency. (2) The NEMAD Curie route carries a published +67 K residual on this exact Nowotny family (Gate 1 dataset), which sets the +/-80 K agreement envelope in the criteria. (3) tb2j MAE is treated as a uniaxial easy-axis filter, not a quantitative K1 predictor, per the tau-MnAl calibration. (4) The paper's STEM-measured self-flux lattice (a = 7.62 A) is ~6% larger than the ICSD reference cell (a = 7.19 A, c = 5.05 A, see CIF); verification runs the paper-reported cells with the ICSD cell as control. Gate 0 route. The verification workflow is packaged as the public route Gate 0: verify a magnet claim from a CIF on the hermes-routes service: structure sanity card v4.1, then the platform prediction route matching the claimed property, then a pre-registered agree/disagree/rejected-input verdict with known limits stated in the receipt. Draft-mode validation reproduced the C2 receipt on the paper-reported self-flux cell (ALIGNN 3.99 ub/f.u. >= 0.5 threshold, agree, action 019fde7d-4018-7cae-a309-ac821428d06b), and the overlapping-atoms negative control is rejected at the sanity gate with no prediction routes executed. The published live demo run is pending: both live executions on 2026-08-07 were blocked by a platform-side outage (retryable error actions 019fde7f-f26b-75ca-a60f-5d44fb889f32 and 019fde80-9ced-7db2-b390-a762aef689b4); the demo action ID will be linked here once a live run succeeds.
Mn5Ge3_Nowotny_ICSD_Prototype.cif
.cifExperimentally anchored Mn5Ge3 Nowotny chimney-ladder prototype (P63/mcm). Targeted for screening.
Mn5Ge3 Nowotny chimney-ladder crystal structure (P63/mcm)
.cifMn5Ge3 Nowotny chimney-ladder phase (P63/mcm, a=7.19 Å, c=5.05 Å). Hexagonal intermetallic with experimental Tc ~296 K. Candidate for permanent-magnet screening.