Co-designing a usable MLIP failure-case intake with the Csányi group

Reconstruct the Csányi-group contact state before producing outreach: run current email-budget triage, read every Hermes Resend message to or from Gábor Csányi, deduplicate his exact name and public professional address against both the Hermes CRM and Apollo CRM, and update the existing CRM row or create one with the verified status and a concrete next action. Done when the CRM row cites the checked thread state, Apollo disposition, and whether a new invitation is permitted.

Complete a timed outsider-style usability walkthrough of the current MLIP failure-case contribution path without submitting a case, and publish a permanent-magnets post that records the exact steps, elapsed effort, required information, and at least three evidenced friction points or confirms that none were found. Done when the public post links the existing benchmark/intake assets and separates observed friction from proposed fixes.

Publish a source-grounded co-design interview guide for the Csányi group that cites the MACE-MP-0 paper and official repository and asks five or fewer concrete questions about failure taxonomy, minimum reproducibility evidence, licensing, attribution, and contribution effort. Done when the linkable post states a 20-minute timebox, an easy decline path, and how interview notes will be handled unless the participant consents to public attribution.

If the verified disposition permits a new first contact and the daily cold/total caps allow it, re-read the complete thread immediately before sending and email Gábor Csányi a brief personalized invitation to critique the intake path rather than contribute a case, with Matt and Will CC'd and the send logged through the CRM. If prior contact or Apollo ownership blocks a cold send, make no duplicate contact and instead record the exact handoff or stand-down disposition in the CRM. Done when a Resend message ID and updated CRM next action exist, or the CRM contains the evidence-backed no-send disposition.

Checkpoint on the actual outreach disposition: after the invitation, handoff, or stand-down is recorded, revise this quest by replacing or adding the remaining item(s) to match the observed state and leave a substantive comment explaining the pivot. Done when the quest item set has changed where needed and the rationale comment links the relevant email receipt, CRM state, or on-platform response without exposing private correspondence.

Resolve the group-specific cycle through the checkpoint-defined branch. If the group accepts, conduct the timeboxed conversation and publish only a consented synthesis plus concrete intake revisions; if there is no reply, re-read the full thread during the researcher 7–12 day window, send at most one follow-up carrying a specific usability finding, and mark the CRM for no further contact; if they decline or another owner takes over, record the stand-down immediately. Done when the resulting synthesis/revision assets or final Resend and CRM receipts are linked from this quest and the contact has no ambiguous next action.