0 open6 of 6 resolvedOpenedClosed after 2 days
Published the public sponsor-facing prospectus: The nine measurements between our magnet rankings and reality: three fundable quests in #permanent-magnets. The post translates the blind-spot audit and the measured-data call into three named, priced proposals, each with deliverable, verification path, cost range, and what sponsorship buys: Nine candidates, measured — $20k–50k as fresh synthesis + magnetometry, or under $20k structured as per-entry bounties on the quest items (payout only on accepted entries). Deliverable: measured or literature-verified Tc, Ms, and ordering for the nine slice candidates, published open. Gate 0 for the top 50 — $10k–30k of compute + curation. FM-vs-AFM ordering checks under one DFT method plus a 450 K Tc hard gate, using the already-live, control-validated Gate 0 verification route. Deliverable: re-ranked shortlist with audit column. QMC ground-truth calibration layer — pilot at $50k–100k, anchored on the QMCPACK ecosystem; framed honestly as a preliminary conversation (Schmidt Sciences thread) with nothing committed. Traction is stated plainly in the post: 1/9 call items closed (Fe3P), zero external entries so far, no external funding to date. All done-conditions met: public post exists, links the audit, the call quest, and the slice dataset, and each proposal carries a concrete budget range. Next item in this quest: verify and rank the three sponsor targets (Simons MPS LOI Oct 29, Sloan, Renaissance Philanthropy) against these proposals.
Verified and ranked the three named sponsor targets plus both alternates against fresh public program pages (2026-08-09), with clean dedup (CRM rows for all five; Resend domain scan shows outbound only to Sloan, matching its row; Apollo-CRM check skipped — no dataset id in MEMORY.md). Ranking recorded in CRM next_action fields and in the quest comment: 1. Simons MPS Collaborations — LOI due Oct 29 2026 12pm ET, full proposal Feb 24 2027, award start Jan 1 2028; actionable only as an LOI application gated on @mmoderwell's approval of the existing concept (quest 019f62a9), not a cold email. 2. Renaissance OS4Science — inaugural 2026 call closed and life-sciences-only; controller do-not-contact stands; future-cycle watch. 3. Sloan — structurally closed (Aug 5 reply: no grants to for-profit companies; E&E RFP not accepting LOIs). Alternates: ARPA-E MAGNITO FOA DE-FOA-0003590 closed (~$20M, not $36M as previously noted); DCVC has no sponsorship mechanism. Five CRM rows updated: 57b6cbc1 (Simons), 54d7d4c4 (Renaissance), 29cf24f0 (Sloan), 019ee296-1e98-7f9d (MAGNITO), 019ee296-1e98-7635 (DCVC). Quest items 2 and 3 revised to match the evidence.
Published the Simons Foundation MPS Collaborations LOI concept as a private post (LOI Concept Draft), shared with @mmoderwell and @will for review. The draft builds on the July 15 LOI concept comment (019f66f6) and incorporates the August 9 sponsor prospectus and measured-data call. It frames: QMC ground-truth calibration layer (Paul Kent / QMCPACK bridge) as the intellectual core — systematically improvable many-body reference data against which MLIPs can be honestly scored Measured-data call (quest 019fe745) as the community instrument where predictions meet experimental reality Budget sketch: ~$2M/year for 4 years across QMC calculations, ML theory, benchmark infrastructure, measured-data verification, and personnel Candidate team: Tess Smidt (MIT, e3nn), Andrew Millis (Columbia, past Simons Collaboration director), Michele Ceriotti (EPFL, PET-MAD); Paul Kent as collaborating scientist (no salary support per national lab constraint) Alternative path: Simons Targeted Grants in MPS (rolling deadline) as a smaller pilot stepping stone The draft explicitly states that submission of any LOI is a controller decision and recommends the controllers decide between pursuing the Collaboration LOI (Oct 29 deadline) or starting with a Targeted Grant.
Stand-down disposition, nothing sent. Re-read attempt documented in comment 019fe88e: Resend list endpoints currently retain only ~30 days, so the June thread bodies are no longer retrievable; the SDK scan confirms no Suhas message in the last ~4 weeks. CRM row 019ee292-9d52-7475-a49b-ac478c833b77 shows we were the last to speak twice (Jun 25 reply, Jun 29 follow-up, followupsent=true), so no reply is owed and the one follow-up is used. The only substantive re-entry (shaped QMC-pilot pitch) is gated on the Paul Kent handoff to @mmoderwell recorded Jun 30 (Kent wants a qualified human); no evidence that conversation has happened. CRM next_action updated to the stand-down + unblock condition: when Kent engages, re-enter Suhas with the Kent ground-truth angle and the prospectus (post 019fe856-c99a-70d8-b92e-09e5b25cdaa9). Comment also flags to @mmoderwell that the Kent handoff is the current blocker between Schmidt and a fundable QMC pilot. No Resend message id by design.
Closed by controller direction: skip the Simons MPS LOI. On 2026-08-11, @mmoderwell reviewed the LOI concept draft and directed: "All good. Let's skip this one and move on." The no-send disposition stands permanently. No cold sponsor email was sent from the current target set, and no LOI will be submitted. The Simons MPS Collaborations path is closed. The sponsor prospectus cycle still delivered its durable outputs: the public sponsor prospectus post, the nine-candidate measured-data call, and the LOI concept draft as a reference asset. If a genuinely new sponsor target with a public contact emerges in the future, a fresh quest should be opened rather than reopening this one.
Checkpoint complete — branch: wait for controller LOI feedback Evidence pulled: across all cycle assets since 2026-08-08. Zero external engagement (0 external comments, 0 reactions, 0 downloads, 0 uses, 0 external quest entries). No sponsor replies in CRM. Assessment comment: Posted on the quest (comment 019fedea) with full evidence table, CRM status for all five sponsor targets, and the branch rationale. Branch taken: Wait for controller review of the Simons LOI concept draft. Item 4 set to controller review with 3-day recurring check until Aug 17. No second sponsor wave justified — all targets exhausted. No reply handling needed — no replies received. Item set now matches observed state: Items 0-3: done (prospectus, ranking, LOI draft, Schmidt thread disposition) Item 4: pending, waiting on controller LOI review (3d recurring check) Item 5: done (this checkpoint) If no controller feedback by Aug 17, the quest closes with the no-send disposition standing. The prospectus and measured-data call remain public as standing instruments regardless of quest status.
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.
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
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.
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.
RE-free magnet measurement call: candidate slice
Candidate slice for the measured-data call on rare-earth-free permanent magnets. Nine candidates drawn from the RE-free PM lab shortlist and the Oliynyk 24, each selected because the blind-spot audit shows a decisive magnetic property is missing, and because the shortlist's own ranking already evidences synthesis tractability. Honest status: every magnetic number quoted in is a model output computed on an assumed-ferromagnetic configuration; none of these nine candidates has a measured value for its missing property in either source dataset. Each row names the exact measurement that closes its gap (SQUID/VSM magnetization vs field, thermomagnetic M(T), or an anisotropy-field determination) and the audit blind spot it traces to. A valid contribution against any row is one measured value (structure file plus measurement conditions) or one verified literature value with full provenance. Selection deliberately favors under-characterized compounds over literature staples like MnBi or Fe2B, whose measured values already exist.
Close the blind spots: measured magnetic data for nine rare-earth-free magnet candidates
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.
The nine measurements between our magnet rankings and reality: three fundable quests
A sponsor-facing prospectus translating the RE-free magnet blind-spot audit into three named, priced quests: measured data for nine candidates, a Gate 0 ordering verification sweep, and a QMC ground-truth calibration layer.
Gate 0: verify a magnet claim from a CIF
Verify one quantitative magnet claim against a CIF: structure sanity card, then the platform prediction route matching the claimed property, then a pre-registered agree/disagree/rejected-input verdict with known limits stated.