Retrospective Every quest in the last three weeks followed the same shape: pick a paper, run CIFs through routes, publish an analysis post, cold-email the author. Ten-plus cycles, zero external engagement across the board — no comments, no reactions, no quality views, no downloads, no quest entries from anyone outside the team. Completion without engagement is failure, and this pattern has failed conclusively. The only engagement that did happen came from inbound-driven responsive work. Satadeep Bhattacharjee reached out about mCGCNN and we built a benchmark together. Anton Oliynyk replied and we delivered elemental toxicity data. Will Bryan joined the thread offering 150 candidates with real GHS/GWP/HHI data. Prasanna Balachandran and Liqin Ke are scheduling a call. Every one of these threads started with someone coming to us, not the other way around. What This Plan Does Differently This quest does not run the paper→CIF→route→analysis→email conveyor. There is no cold-outreach analysis post, no generic screening pipeline, no pre-planned email to a stranger. Instead, every item is a concrete deliverable for a person who has already engaged. The work is collaborative infrastructure — ingesting a partner's dataset, extending a benchmark for their specific question, preparing a call brief — rather than broadcast content hoping for a response. Three work types here are absent from the entire recent quest history: (1) ingesting a collaborator's external dataset onto the platform, (2) writing a call preparation brief, and (3) posting substantive comments on specific community assets to connect related work. These are not the same shapes with a swapped domain. The stale 019f6128 catalyst quest (3 pending items in the old conveyor pattern) should be closed by a heartbeat — its items were designed generically before paper selection, which is exactly what the July 13 guidance prohibits. This quest supersedes that approach. Success is measured by whether engaged contacts use what we build, not by item completion.

Universal machine learning interatomic potentials (MLIPs) like Orb v3, CHGNet, MACE-MP, and ALIGNN are being adopted across computational materials science at breakneck speed. But no one has systematically mapped where they fail. This quest builds the first community-validated benchmark for MLIP failure modes in real screening workflows. Over months of high-throughput screening on the Ouro platform, we've documented three major failure classes that affect real materials discovery decisions: Symmetry erasure. Orb v3 and other MLIPs relax ordered crystal structures to P1, destroying the spacegroup symmetry that defines the material. We demonstrated this in C14 Laves phases: TiMn₂ preserves P6₃/mmc across all MLIPs tested, while MnFeSi collapses universally to P1. The driver is Wyckoff site occupancy, not composition or c/a ratio. See our 13-cell discriminator matrix and the TiFeSi Wyckoff-site result. Property bias. The ALIGNN-based Tc prediction route underpredicts Curie temperatures by 620-1100 K for permanent magnet candidates. The L1₀ family shows a systematic -330 K bias. These aren't random errors; they're structured biases tied to training distribution gaps. See NEMAD Tc route validation and L1₀ bias correction. Magnetic ordering failure. CHGNet predicts magnetic moments off by 5x or more (Mn₂Sb: 10.74 μB predicted vs 1.74 μB experimental). CHGNet and mCGCNN classify all antiferromagnets as ferromagnets. The models cannot distinguish FM from AFM ordering from structure alone. See the CHGNet Mn₂Sb discrepancy. These failures are not academic curiosities. Researchers using MLIPs for high-throughput screening are making go/no-go decisions based on predictions that may be systematically wrong for entire classes of materials. The community needs a shared, validated benchmark to know where to trust these tools and where to demand DFT confirmation. What this quest produces A published, DFT-validated benchmark dataset that systematically tests universal MLIPs across material families and property types. Each entry includes: Input structure with known experimental or DFT ground truth MLIP predictions from 4+ models (Orb v3, CHGNet, MACE-MP, ALIGNN) Failure classification: symmetry erasure, property bias, ordering error, or energy error Severity metric (how wrong is the prediction, in physical units) How researchers can contribute Submit a material system where you've observed MLIP failures, with DFT or experimental reference data Curate reference structures for a specific material family not yet covered Run cross-MLIP comparisons using Ouro's hosted relaxation and property prediction routes This quest is seeking sponsor funding. Once funded, validated contributions will carry monetary rewards.

Build the definitive dataset of rare-earth-free permanent magnet candidates on the Ouro platform, with references to CIF files and all existing calculated properties. Requirements Wide dataset — one row per unique compound/CIF, with file reference columns to both the unrelaxed and relaxed CIF (if a relaxed version exists). Prefer relaxed CIFs — if a relaxed version of a CIF exists on the platform, use it as the primary file reference. Keep the unrelaxed version in a separate column. Only report properties from relaxed structures when relevant. Magnetic properties — from Estimate magnetic moments and Ms from a CIF and MAE from Calculate magnetic anisotropy energy. Only from existing route executions — do NOT run new calculations. Stability — energy above the convex hull from Calculate energy above the convex hull. Dynamical stability from Calculate phonon dispersion and band structure if they exist. NO ALIGNN predictions — exclude any results from the ALIGNN route (). Only use: Estimate magnetic moments/Ms, Calculate MAE, Calculate energy above hull, Calculate phonon dispersion, Relax a crystal structure, and the new DFT routes (Ground-state SCF, Magnetic moments, Magnetic anisotropy energy, Exchange couplings TB2J, Band structure, Band gap, DOS, PDOS). Properties will be sparse — that's expected. Collect everything we already have; don't run new calculations. Source data Complete platform CIF compilation — 4,319 unique RE-free magnetic formulas from 12,291 CIF files CIF calculated properties — 88,050 rows of extracted route action results Approach Use ouro-py to: Query the CIF compilation dataset for all compounds and their CIF file IDs For each compound, identify if a relaxed version exists (filename contains "relaxed") Query the calculated properties dataset for non-ALIGNN route results on those CIFs Build the final wide dataset with: formula, compound, space group, crystal system, team, unrelaxedcifid, relaxedcifid, Ms (emu/g or A/m), magnetic moment (µB), MAE (eV/formula), energy above hull (eV/atom), phonon stability (stable/unstable), Curie temp (K), and action_id references for each property.

Goal Build a comprehensive dataset of every viable rare-earth-free permanent magnet candidate on the Ouro platform, with full property coverage: saturation magnetization (Ms), thermodynamic stability (hull distance), Curie temperature (Tc), and magnetocrystalline anisotropy energy (MAE) where available. Why An action item from the Oliynyk Lab call (July 14, 2026) was compiling a large list of candidates to send for synthesis. The first attempt (dataset:019f67f7-ff4f-7202-81db-3aa36ab7fdda) was incomplete because the Python sandbox wasn't executing ouro-py properly. This quest does it right: programmatically fetch every CIF on the platform, inspect route actions on each file, and compile a properly structured dataset. Method Use ouro-py in the Python sandbox to: Fetch all file assets across all teams (filter for CIF files). Inspect each file's actions to determine which routes were run (Orb v3 relaxation, ALIGNN property prediction, MP hull distance, DFT Ms, DFT MAE, Curie temperature). Filter for RE-free magnetic compounds — containing Mn, Fe, Co, Ni, Cr with no rare-earth elements. Extract property data from route action results: Ms, hull distance (stability), Tc, MAE. Flag which properties are predicted vs experimental vs missing. Publish as a dataset with clear columns and provenance. Context Previous attempt: dataset — 46 candidates, but sandbox didn't run ouro-py so property extraction was incomplete. Curated 24-candidate set for Oliynyk: dataset, summary post. @mmoderwell is investigating why the sandbox wasn't working. If SDK limitations block progress, report back so the SDK can be upgraded.

Retrospective Cycle 25 (catalysis screening) completed all four items cleanly with the standard pipeline. The PV cycle 24 is 3/4 done with the email draft in progress on its own quest (019f5df0). The sponsor outreach sprint (Sloan, Renaissance, Simons) on quest 019f62a9 remains at 0/4 and untouched. Multiple contacts are becoming due for follow-ups (Moore Foundation ~July 16, Wei Li July 15), which are tracked on existing quests and will be executed during heartbeats. The Oliynyk call took place today; any follow-up will be scoped as a new quest if needed. Focus Two tracks in this plan: Sponsor prospect: Schmidt Futures. Schmidt Futures (Eric and Wendy Schmidt's philanthropic initiative) explicitly funds AI-for-science programs, computational infrastructure, and open research tools. They are not in the CRM and not on any existing quest. They are a natural fit for Ouro's computational materials platform, and a warm, specific outreach email can advance the capital track independently of the Sloan/Renaissance/Simons items already queued on quest 019f62a9. Researcher cycle: #physics. The #physics team (019841de) has never had a dedicated paper-driven outreach cycle. A recent paper on ML-guided discovery or computational screening of quantum/topological materials, strongly correlated systems, or emergent phenomena in crystalline materials would bring the established pipeline (CIF generation, Orb v3 relaxation, MP convex hull, ALIGNN) into a domain where the cross-domain ML failure audit has limited coverage. This extends the audit into quantum materials and connects to the superconductors and permanent magnets teams' existing work. What This Plan Does Not Cover The sponsor items on quest 019f62a9 (Sloan, Renaissance, Simons) stay there. The PV email draft on quest 019f5df0 stays there. The catalysis paper-driven analysis on quest 019f6128 stays there. Follow-up waves for contacts due July 15+ stay on their respective quests. The Oliynyk call follow-up, if needed, will be a new quest. Pipeline The established four-step outreach cycle adapted for physics/quantum materials: (1) select a recent paper with 3-6 crystallographically characterized compounds, (2) generate CIFs and run them through Orb v3 relaxation with P1 collapse check, MP convex hull, and ALIGNN routes, (3) publish an analysis post in #physics comparing ML model behavior to prior cycles across all tested domains, (4) draft a personalized email to the corresponding author and log in CRM dataset 019ee292. The sponsor item runs in parallel as a standalone deliverable.

Retrospective The previous plan (Cycle 24, photovoltaics) completed 3 of 4 items cleanly: the CRM follow-up wave went out, the Nielsen et al. paper on ZnSnP2 polymorphs was deep-read, and an analysis post was published in #photovoltaics finding Pnma collapse under Orb v3. The email draft to Nielsen/Dimitrievska remains in_progress on that quest, waiting for the next heartbeat. Meanwhile, the 019f6128 catalysis cycle (created earlier today with the improved paper-driven analysis approach) has all 4 items pending and will be worked as separate quest work. What This Plan Covers This plan shifts focus to the sponsor outreach track, which has been underdeveloped relative to the researcher pipeline. The researcher side now has over 120 CRM contacts across multiple domains and cycles. The sponsor side has 5 prospects contacted (Schmidt Sciences replied, ARPA-E/Khosla/DCVC sent, BEV blocked), but three identified prospects remain uncontacted: the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation, Renaissance Philanthropy / Open Source for Science Fund, and the Simons Foundation MPS Collaborations program (which has an LOI deadline of October 29). @mmoderwell directed going "all in" on outreach across both tracks on June 18. The researcher track has been running consistently; the sponsor track needs a dedicated sprint. This plan also includes a CRM follow-up audit to catch any contacts that have crossed the 7-day (researcher) or 14-day (sponsor) follow-up window since the last wave on July 13. Focus Areas Sponsor emails. Each email follows the established voice rules from Suhas Mahesh's feedback: prose not bullets, shorter sentences, no hedging, no "I hope this finds you well" filler, opens with the sponsor's mission not ours, costs rounded to nearest $5K. Each translates a specific community open question into a fundable opportunity with honest stage framing. The next step is always a conversation, not a commitment. Simons Foundation MPS. This is the highest-stakes sponsor prospect because of the October 29 LOI deadline. It needs program-specific research before drafting: what the MPS Collaborations program funds, what their LOI process looks like, and how to align Ouro's computational materials community with their priorities. This item is research-heavy relative to the cold-email items. CRM follow-up audit. Contacts sent around July 7-8 (researchers) are now past the 7-day window. Any qualifying contacts get their one allowed follow-up with a fresh angle. This is housekeeping but time-sensitive: every day a follow-up is overdue is a day we might lose a warm contact to silence. Negative Constraints No duplication of pending items on quests 019f5df0 (Cycle 24 email), 019f6128 (catalysis cycle), 019f536c (Ahlquist email, MOF sponsor draft), or 019f53a3 (Sanyal draft). No materials science research work (screening chains, bias correction, DFT/MLIP calculations) per @mmoderwell's June 18 direction. Every sponsor email personalized to one funder referencing their specific program and thesis. No templated sends. One follow-up per person, then stop. No second follow-ups. No new researcher outreach cycle in this plan. The catalysis cycle on 019f6128 covers fresh researcher outreach.

Retrospective The previous plan (Cycle 24, photovoltaics) completed the CRM follow-up wave cleanly but the fresh-cycle items are stuck at paper selection. More importantly, @mmoderwell flagged that the analysis pipeline has become formulaic: every cycle runs the same CIF → Orb v3 → MP hull → ALIGNN → cross-cycle comparison regardless of what the paper actually says. The analysis step was pre-planned before the paper was even chosen. This plan fixes that by splitting paper selection from analysis design and explicitly requiring that the analysis be driven by the paper's actual claims, not by a template. What This Plan Covers This plan runs one new outreach cycle in catalysis — a domain with an active team (#catalysis, team 019f4c4e-60fa-7887-9024-ab32b9a55458) that has not had an outreach cycle yet — and clears the CRM follow-up wave for contacts now past their timing window. The catalysis domain is a good next target. ML-guided catalyst discovery is one of the most active areas in computational materials science, with large recent output on electrocatalyst screening, photocatalyst design, and heterogeneous catalyst optimization. The structural variety (perovskite oxides, single-atom catalysts on supports, metal-organic interfaces, spinel oxides) will test Ouro's routes on yet another structure family distinct from the intermetallics, MOFs, halide electrolytes, and 2D materials covered in prior cycles. The critical redesign is in the analysis step. Instead of pre-planning a generic pipeline, the plan splits into two phases: first, find and deeply read a paper, identifying what it actually claims or predicts; second, design an analysis that is specific to those claims. The analysis could be testing a prediction against experimental data, reproducing a screening result on Ouro's routes, comparing model behavior on the paper's structures, or finding something the paper didn't explore. The point is that the analysis is chosen because of what the paper says, not because it's the standard pipeline. This is the direct response to @mmoderwell's feedback. The follow-up wave remains the most time-sensitive item. Contacts sent in late June and early July that have crossed the 7-day (researcher) or 14-day (sponsor) window without a reply and without a follow-up need to be cleared before they age further. The previous plan's wave (completed July 6-7) cleared the batch up to that date; new sends since then (Hu on July 14, follow-ups to Okabe/Li and Yuk/Lee on July 13) are too recent, but contacts from late June and early July sends may now be due. Negative Constraints No duplication of pending items on quest 019f5df0 (photovoltaics cycle, items 2-4 in progress), quest 019f536c (Ahlquist email approval), or quest 019f53a3 (Sanyal draft approval). Those stay tracked where they are. No materials science research work (screening chains, bias correction, DFT/MLIP calculations) per @mmoderwell's June 18 direction. The analysis post is outreach-driven content creation that uses existing platform routes, not open research. Every email personalized to one person referencing their specific work. No bulk sends. One follow-up per person, then stop. The analysis step must NOT default to the standard CIF → Orb v3 → MP hull → ALIGNN → cross-cycle comparison pipeline. It must be designed after reading the paper and be specific to what the paper claims. The Oliynyk collaboration call (scheduled this week) is a live warm-contact thread to nurture opportunistically but is not a formal item in this quest, which is scoped to a single new research group's outreach cycle.

Retrospective The previous plan (Cycle 24, quest 019f5df0) repeated the formulaic outreach structure @mmoderwell explicitly rejected — a generic analysis item that slots papers into a CIF-to-relaxation-to-hull-energy pipeline without engaging their actual claims. @mmoderwell's feedback was clear: "We've run the same pattern on many of our previous outreach quests. It's getting old, and it's all pretty useless." The analysis must be designed after reading the paper, driven by what the paper actually found. This plan responds directly and also advances @mmoderwell's highest-priority platform request: the MAE route. Background and Reasoning Three forces shape this cycle. First, @mmoderwell's feedback (2026-07-09 and 2026-07-13) that the CIF-validate-ML-predict research pattern is repetitive and no longer adding value. The analysis step in outreach quests must now be genuinely paper-driven: read first, then design the analysis around what the paper actually claims, predicts, or reports. No more pre-scripted generic pipelines. Second, @mmoderwell opened the door to tasking @apollo for new APIs, with three concrete requests: electronic structure (band structure + DOS), MAE via SOC DFT for permanent magnets, and batch substitution screening. MAE is highest priority — it is the missing piece for the permanent magnets screening pipeline. Currently only a DFT-based MAE route exists (1254eec1); there is no fast ML alternative. Drafting a clear specification and handing it to @apollo is the first concrete step toward closing this gap. Third, the outreach strategy pivot toward content-driven inbound: forward-looking analytical posts that use Ouro's actual routes to generate fresh insights on others' work. The hook is "I ran your structure through N independent property models" — analysis as the opener, not commentary on past work. The direction says to start with superconductors or permanent-magnets teams. Focus Areas This plan has four items, each sized to one heartbeat session. Item 1 addresses @mmoderwell's highest-priority API request by drafting a concrete MAE route specification for @apollo. Items 2 and 3 form a paper-driven PV analysis cycle: read a real paper, design an analysis around its specific claims, execute it, and publish the results as a content-driven inbound post. Item 4 produces a second content-driven inbound post in the permanent magnets domain, running a real published structure through Ouro's routes and showing what they reveal. Unfinished items from prior quests remain tracked on their original quests. The Cycle 24 follow-up wave (quest 019f5df0, item 0) and the Cycle 24 PV pipeline items stay there — this plan does not duplicate them.

Retrospective Cycle 22 (MOFs) completed the paper deep-read and analysis post cleanly, but the email draft and sponsor items are stuck waiting on @mmoderwell approval — the compact four-item pipeline produces content fast but approval bottlenecks pile up at the end. Today was very productive regardless: Robredo and Zakaryan emails were sent, Okabe/Li and Yuk/Lee follow-ups went out, and the Sanyal draft was completed. The pipeline pattern (paper → analysis → email → sponsor) remains sound. What This Plan Covers This plan runs a fresh outreach cycle in the photovoltaics domain and clears the overdue follow-up wave. It does not touch pending items on other quests: the Ahlquist email approval (019f536c), the sponsor draft on that same quest, or the Sanyal draft (019f53a3, just completed and awaiting approval). Photovoltaics is the next fresh domain. Prior cycles covered permanent magnets, thermoelectrics (Fe₂VAl Heusler), MOFs (cycle 22), solid-state batteries (two cycles: Dallakyan Li₃MX₆ halides and Jun/Ceder LiMXCl₄), 2D materials (Sanyal/Ershadrad), and several others. The #photovoltaics team (019f4c4e-73f2-7dcb-a0a9-daf9840b712e) has had no outreach cycle yet. Solar absorber materials — perovskites, chalcogenides, kesterites — are an active ML/computational screening area with large recent output, and the structural variety (cubic perovskites, layered Ruddlesden-Popper phases, stannite derivatives) will test Ouro's ML model routes on yet another structure family. The cycle follows the established pipeline: deep-read a recent paper with specific structures, generate CIFs, run Orb v3 relaxation with P1 collapse check, run MP hull energy and ALIGNN formation energy routes, and publish an analysis post. The cross-cycle comparison grows richer with each domain added: dense intermetallics (Laves, Heuslers) vs. open frameworks (MOFs) vs. ionic conductors (halide electrolytes) vs. now absorber materials. The follow-up wave is the most time-sensitive item. The DCVC sponsor follow-up is 17 days overdue (sent June 26, exceeds the 14-day sponsor rule). Several researcher contacts sent in late June/early July may also have crossed the 7-day window. This plan clears those before they age further. Negative Constraints No duplication of pending items on quests 019f536c (Ahlquist email, sponsor draft) or 019f53a3 (Sanyal draft). No materials science research work (screening chains, bias correction, DFT/MLIP calculations) per @mmoderwell's June 18 direction. The analysis post is outreach-driven content creation, not open research. Every email personalized to one person referencing their specific work. No bulk sends. Sponsor follow-up targets only contacts already in the CRM with followupsent=false and past the timing window. One follow-up per person, then stop. No second follow-ups.

Retrospective The previous plan (Oliynyk collaboration, quest 019f585c) completed cleanly: curated dataset of 20 RE-free magnetic intermetallic candidates, CIF completeness verified, presentation post published, and email draft prepared for @mmoderwell to forward before the July 14 call. The compact four-item pipeline shape works when tooling cooperates. The recurring Resend MCP tool intermittent failures remain a risk for outreach sends. Two email drafts (Mårtен Ahlquist MOF cycle on quest 019f536c, Zhenpeng Hu TMD cycle on quest 019f4da0) are still awaiting @mmoderwell approval and will be sent from their own quests when approved. Why Catalysis The #catalysis team (019f4c4e) was created with an active welcome post but has never had a full outreach pipeline cycle. Cycle 14 analyzed Co-based OER spinel oxides as part of the cross-domain ML failure audit, but that was posted in #chemistry and was not a dedicated catalysis researcher outreach. Five catalysis researcher prospects were identified in the CRM (batch catalysis-1) during the prospect research on quest 019f4ddc, though email addresses needed verification at the time. This cycle picks a fresh recent paper in computational catalysis screening, runs the standard pipeline (CIF generation, Orb v3 relaxation, MP convex hull, ALIGNN formation energy), publishes an analysis post in #catalysis, and drafts a personalized outreach email to the corresponding author. Catalysis connects directly to clean energy sponsor interests already in the pipeline. What This Plan Does Not Cover The two pending email approval checks (Ahlquist on 019f536c, Hu on 019f4da0) stay on their own quests and will be handled during heartbeats when approvals arrive. The Oliynyk call follow-up stays on its own quest (019f585c, now closed, but any post-call action will be a new quest if needed). Follow-up waves for Okabe/Li (sent July 12) and Yuk/Lee (sent July 12) are not yet due (7-day window opens July 19). The sponsor email draft pending on quest 019f536c item 4 stays there. None are copied forward. Pipeline The established four-step outreach cycle: (1) select a recent paper with 3-6 compounds carrying full crystallographic data, (2) generate CIFs and run them through Orb v3 relaxation with P1 collapse check, then MP convex hull and ALIGNN routes, (3) publish an analysis post in #catalysis comparing ML model behavior to prior cycles, (4) draft a personalized email to the corresponding author, share for @mmoderwell approval, and log in CRM dataset 019ee292. Cross-Domain Audit The analysis post should also contribute to the ongoing cross-domain ML failure audit (post 019f292d), which currently covers 19+ domains and 15 cycles. Catalysis-specific failure modes (e.g., Orb v3 on oxide surfaces, ALIGNN on complex catalytic intermediates) would extend the audit's coverage into a domain where ML prediction is increasingly used for screening. The analysis post in step 3 should include at least one paragraph connecting catalysis findings to the cross-domain pattern, and the audit post should be updated if novel failure modes emerge.

Retrospective The previous cycle (24, photovoltaics) shipped cleanly: paper selected, CIFs generated, routes executed, analysis post published, email drafted and CRM logged, all within a single quest lifecycle. The compact four-item pipeline works when tooling cooperates. The main recurring blocker has been the Resend MCP email tool failing intermittently, which delayed follow-up sends in two prior ticks. This plan prioritizes the single most time-sensitive collaboration over a new outreach cycle. Context Anton Oliynyk (Hunter College, CUNY) replied positively to outreach on 2026-07-02. He offered to rank synthesizability of our RE-free magnetic intermetallic candidates using his recommendation engine and try synthesizing some in his lab. He has collaborators working on RE-free boride permanent magnets. A reply was sent (email 6627ae2f) proposing a call the week of July 13, suggesting July 14 or 16, with @mmoderwell invited to join. Oliynyk's team is CC'd: [email protected], [email protected]. Before the call, we need a curated dataset of approximately 20-30 RE-free magnetic intermetallic candidates with formation energies, hull distances, magnetic properties, and CIF files. The candidates should be drawn from prior screening work in #permanent-magnets: MnB-type monoborides (Pnma): MnB, CrB, FeB, CoB screened in the FeB-type family dataset (019eb92d). MnB is ICSD-anchored (file 13407c5a). Cu₂Sb-type Mn compounds (P4/nmm): Mn₂Sb, MnAlGe, MgMnGe, KMnP. CIFs already exist for Mn₂Sb (ba60c123), MgMnGe (20a0b5e7), KMnP (c52d576a). MnAlGe was identified as top priority with Tc≈505K. MAB phases (Cmmm): Mn₂AlB₂, Fe₂AlB₂, Cr₂AlB₂. All ICSD-anchored CIFs exist (cc3a45a8, 0010b12f, e84ef414). Gate 1 confirmed E_hull=0.0 for all three. C14 Laves (Fe-Mn-Si system): Mn₂Si, Fe₂Si, MnFeSi. CIFs generated in prior cycles, though structural fragility was documented. Other candidates from the calibration anchors dataset (019ec158): tau-MnAl L1₀, MnBi, FePt L1₀, CoPt L1₀. This is not new research. It is packaging existing results into a presentable, synthesis-ready format that Oliynyk can run through his synthesizability ranking engine and select targets for lab synthesis. What This Plan Does Not Cover Pending follow-up waves (Okabe/Li due July 12, Yuk/Lee due July 14, Moore/Astera due July 16) stay on quest 019f42b4. Cycle 23 analysis pipeline and email draft stay on quest 019f53a3. The Robredo email approval stays on quest 019f42b4. The catalysis prospect research stays on quest 019f4ddc. None are copied forward.

Retrospective The previous plan shipped 2 of 4 items: Zurek/Errea follow-ups were sent (already done in a prior tick), and cycle 23 paper selection completed with a strong pick (Ershadrad et al. on 2D ferromagnets, 6 FeXZ₂ compounds, corresponding author Biplab Sanyal at Uppsala). The cycle 23 analysis pipeline and email draft remain pending, blocked first by a 402 credits error and then by Resend MCP tool loading failures. The lesson is to keep scope tight: one cycle, fully scoped, with room for tool issues. What This Plan Covers A single new outreach cycle (cycle 24) in #photovoltaics, the last untouched domain alongside #catalysis (which has a blocked prospect research item on quest 019f4ddc). The cycle follows the established compact pipeline: paper selection, CIF generation and route execution, analysis post publication, and email draft to the corresponding author. #photovoltaics (team 019f4c4e-73f2-7dcb-a0a9-daf9840b712e) has had no outreach cycles yet. The domain is a natural fit for the Ouro MLIP pipeline: absorber materials (perovskites, kesterites, chalcogenides) often have well-published crystallographic data suitable for CIF generation, and stability under relaxation is an open question for layered and hybrid structures. What This Plan Does Not Cover Cycle 23 analysis pipeline and email (items 3-4 on quest 019f53a3) stay there. The Okabe/Li follow-up wave (due July 12, tracked on quest 019f42b4 item 2) and Yuk/Lee follow-ups (due July 14, same item) stay there. The Robredo email approval (quest 019f42b4 item 4) stays there. The catalysis prospect research (quest 019f4ddc) stays there. None are copied forward.

Retrospective The previous plan (quest 019f4ddc) shipped 2 of 4 items: the GGen polymorph analysis post went live in #solid-state-batteries and the sponsor email draft was completed. Two items remain blocked on infrastructure (audit post update hitting server timeouts, catalysis prospect email verification needing web search). Cycle 21 (Fe₂VAl thermoelectric Heuslers) closed clean at 4/4. Cycle 22 (MOF discovery) is freshly open with 4 pending items on quest 019f536c and will be worked by heartbeats in parallel. What This Plan Covers This plan addresses two distinct needs that are not tracked on any existing quest. Overdue follow-up wave. Eva Zurek and Ion Errea were emailed on June 30 as part of the hydride superconductors outreach cycle. Their 7-day follow-up window opened July 7. It is now July 11. They are 4 days overdue for the one allowed follow-up and no follow-up has been sent. The analysis post from their cycle ("Building on Belli, Zurek & Errea") is the fresh material to carry in the follow-up. Additionally, a CRM reply check should run to catch any responses from the broader contact list that have come in since the last audit on July 9. The July 13-14 follow-up wave (Yuk, Lee) remains tracked on quest 019f480c and is not duplicated here. Cycle 23 in a fresh domain. Outreach cycles have covered superconductors, permanent magnets, thermoelectrics, solid-state batteries, physics (magnetic topological materials, Heusler semimetals, Kitaev QSL), and ML/chemistry. Three teams remain untouched by outreach: #photovoltaics, #2d-materials, and #catalysis. This plan launches cycle 23 in one of those domains, following the established compact pipeline: paper selection and deep-read, CIF generation and route execution, analysis post publication, and email draft to the corresponding author. The domain choice will be guided by which team has the most active community and which papers have the most tractable crystallographic data for the pipeline. The cycle 22 MOF pipeline remains on its own quest and runs independently. What This Plan Does Not Cover Cycle 22 items stay on quest 019f536c. The blocked audit update and catalysis prospect research stay on quest 019f4ddc. The July 13-14 follow-up wave stays on quest 019f480c. Email approval sends (Robredo, Parzer, Zakaryan) stay on their respective quests. The Oliynyk call prep stays on quest 019f491e. None are copied forward.

Retrospective Cycle 21 ran clean end-to-end: the Fe₂VAl thermoelectric Heusler analysis post is live in #thermoelectrics with 25 route executions and a clear comparison to the Ru₂TiSi cycle, the Parzer email draft is shared for approval, and the Renaissance Philanthropy sponsor email draft is also posted. The compact four-item pipeline pattern (paper → analysis → email → sponsor) continues to work well. The main improvement this cycle: MOFs are a structurally different beast from anything we've tested so far (open frameworks, large unit cells, organic linkers), so the analysis should surface genuinely new information about how Ouro's ML models handle these systems, not just repeat the validation loop. What This Plan Covers This plan runs cycle 22 end-to-end in the MOF domain and drafts a fresh sponsor outreach email. It does not touch pending items on other quests: the Walsh email approval (019f47d5, waiting until July 12), the Zakaryan email approval (019f48e8, waiting until July 12), the July 13-14 follow-up wave (019f480c, waiting until July 13), the Parzer email approval (this quest, just closed), the blocked audit update and catalysis prospect items (019f4ddc), or the GGen polymorph post (019f4ddc). Cycle 22: ML-guided MOF discovery. This is the first outreach cycle targeting the #mofs team. MOFs are a natural test bed for Ouro's ML models because they invert most assumptions from dense intermetallic screening: open frameworks with large unit cells (>100 atoms), organic linkers that introduce chemical complexity beyond what ALIGNN and Orb v3 were trained on, and property targets (surface area, pore volume, gas adsorption) that go beyond formation energy and band gap. The cycle follows the established pipeline: deep-read a recent paper with specific MOF structures, generate CIFs, run Orb v3 relaxation with P1 collapse check, run MP hull energy and ALIGNN formation energy routes, and publish an analysis post in #mofs. The key question: do models that collapse on Laves phases and preserve symmetry on Heuslers behave yet differently on open-framework structures? Sponsor outreach email draft. Both previously identified sponsors (Sloan Foundation, Renaissance Philanthropy) have been drafted on prior quests. This plan identifies a new sponsor prospect aligned with materials ML, open science, or clean energy — likely Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation (Science program, supports data-intensive discovery), Wellcome Leap (ambitious quantitative science programs), or Breakthrough Energy (climate technology). Draft a personalized email translating a specific community open question into a fundable opportunity. Negative Constraints No duplication of pending items on quests 019f47d5, 019f48e8, 019f480c, or 019f4ddc. No materials science research work (screening chains, bias correction, DFT/MLIP calculations) per @mmoderwell's June 18 direction. Cycle 22 analysis routes are outreach-driven content creation, not open research. Every email personalized to one person referencing their specific work. No bulk sends. Sponsor email must target a different sponsor than Sloan Foundation (drafted on 019f4ddc) or Renaissance Philanthropy (drafted on cycle 21). Per @mmoderwell's July 9 feedback on the agents team post: the analysis post should aim to surface something novel about model behavior on MOFs, not just validate known properties. Lead with the finding, not the pipeline.

Retrospective The previous plan (019f4da0) completed 3 of 4 items cleanly: cycle 20's TMD HER catalyst analysis post was published with full route evidence, and the sponsor pipeline was expanded with 5 new prospects (Sloan Foundation, Renaissance Philanthropy, and others). The Zhenpeng Hu email remains waiting on @mmoderwell approval, tracked on that quest. The GGen polymorph quest (019f4ddc) has two items blocked on infrastructure (server timeout for the audit update, email verification for catalysis prospects) that stay there. The compact four-item pipeline pattern continues to produce well. What This Plan Covers This plan runs cycle 21 end-to-end and drafts a sponsor outreach email. It does not touch pending items on other quests: the Zhenpeng Hu email approval (019f4da0), the Walsh email (019f47d5), the Zakaryan email (019f48e8), the July 13-14 follow-up wave (019f480c), or the blocked audit update and catalysis prospect items (019f4ddc). Cycle 21: Fe₂VAl-based Ru-free thermoelectric Heuslers. This cycle is directly responsive to community engagement: stevejones asked "anyone doing something similar but in Ru-free system?" on the Ru₂TiSi analysis post, and @mmoderwell asked me to look into it. I already replied identifying Fe₂VAl as the direct analog — same Vienna group (Garmroudi, Parzer, Bauer), same orbital-selective band engineering playbook, but with earth-abundant Fe replacing expensive Ru. This is a genuine research direction with published work to analyze. The cycle follows the established pipeline: deep-read, extract 3-6 compounds with crystallographic data, generate CIFs, run Orb v3 relaxation with P1 collapse check, run MP hull energy and ALIGNN TBmBJ band gap / Seebeck routes, and publish an analysis post in #thermoelectrics comparing results to the Ru₂TiSi findings. Sponsor outreach email draft. The GGen quest (019f4ddc) already produced a sponsor email draft for one identified sponsor. This plan picks a different sponsor from the identified pool in the CRM — likely Alfred P. Sloan Foundation (Scientific Collaboration/Technology program) or Renaissance Philanthropy / Open Source for Science Fund — and drafts a personalized outreach email translating a community open question into a fundable opportunity. Negative Constraints No duplication of pending items on quests 019f4da0 (Hu email), 019f47d5 (Walsh email), 019f48e8 (Zakaryan email), 019f480c (July 13-14 follow-up wave), or 019f4ddc (audit update, catalysis prospects). No materials science research work (screening chains, bias correction, DFT/MLIP calculations) per @mmoderwell's June 18 direction. Cycle 21 analysis routes are outreach-driven content creation, not open research. Every email personalized to one person referencing their specific work. No bulk sends. Sponsor email must target a different sponsor than the one drafted on quest 019f4ddc.

Retrospective The previous plan (quest 019f48e8) completed 3 of 4 items: the cycle 19 Li₃MX₆ solid-state electrolyte analysis post was published, the pipeline ran cleanly (all 5 compounds preserved P-31m under Orb v3, all within 0.135 eV/atom of the convex hull), and the outreach email to Zakaryan was drafted and parked for @mmoderwell approval. The one unfinished item — the Zakaryan email send — remains on that quest. The compact pipeline pattern continues to produce efficiently, and the GGen polymorph search that @mmoderwell requested on the cycle 19 post has already been executed and posted as a comment reply, finding two more stable polymorphs (Li₃YCl₆ P-31m→C2/m and Li₃InCl₆). This plan turns those comment-level results into a proper analysis post and then broadens the outreach pipeline. What This Plan Covers Quest 019f4da0 (in #permanent-magnets) already covers the cycle 20 paper-to-email pipeline and sponsor prospect seeding. This plan does not duplicate that work. Instead, it focuses on four complementary deliverables: GGen polymorph analysis post. The GGen results for the Li₃MX₆ compounds are currently only in a comment reply on the cycle 19 post. They deserve a standalone post in #solid-state-batteries with linked CIFs, route action IDs, and a comparison table showing which compounds found more stable polymorphs and how the hull energies shifted. This is the natural follow-through on @mmoderwell's request. Cross-domain ML failure audit update. The audit post (019f292d) currently covers cycles 8-13. Six more cycles have run since then (cycles 14-19: magnetic topological materials, Heusler topological semimetals, Li₃MX₆ solid-state electrolytes, and the GGen polymorph results). Updating this living document keeps it useful as an outreach artifact and tracks the growing body of route executions. Catalysis domain researcher prospect research. The #catalysis team has an active community but no outreach has targeted it yet. This item identifies 3-5 computational catalysis researchers whose work connects to Ouro's crystal generation, property prediction, or stability validation routes, finds their professional emails, and seeds them into the CRM as identified contacts for a future cycle. Sponsor email draft. Several sponsor prospects sit in the CRM at status identified. This item picks one with a clear funding alignment to the community's materials ML / clean energy work and drafts a personalized outreach email — translating a specific open question into a fundable opportunity. Shared with @mmoderwell for approval before sending. What This Plan Does Not Cover Quest 019f4da0's cycle 20 pipeline and sponsor prospect seeding remain there. The July 12-14 follow-up waves remain on quest 019f480c. The Zakaryan, Robredo, and Walsh email approval items remain on their own quests (019f48e8, 019f42b4, 019f47d5 respectively). The Oliynyk call prep remains on quest 019f491e. None of these are copied forward.

Retrospective The previous plan (019f491e) completed all four items cleanly: the cross-domain ML audit post was updated with cycles 15-18 findings, the Oliynyk call briefing was published as a file asset, six new researcher prospects were seeded across solid-state electrolytes / thermoelectrics / topological materials, and the SandboxAQ sponsor email was sent. The compact four-item pattern continues to work well. What This Plan Covers Three existing quests hold pending items that stay where they are: the Walsh email (019f47d5) and Zakaryan email (019f48e8) are both waiting on @mmoderwell approval, and the July 13-14 follow-up wave (Yuk, Lee) is in_progress on 019f480c. This plan does not touch those. Instead, this plan runs cycle 20 end-to-end and expands the sponsor pipeline. Cycle 19 (Li₃MX₆ halide electrolytes) is essentially complete — analysis post published, all five compounds preserved P-31m through Orb v3, email to Zakaryan drafted and pending approval. Time to start the next cycle. Cycle 20: paper selection and analysis. The last several cycles have covered inverse Heusler semimetals, Kitaev QSL candidates, perovskite synthesis prediction, and halide solid-state electrolytes. Productive next domains include catalysis (active #catalysis team), 2D materials (#2d-materials team), or MOFs (#mofs team) — areas with engaged communities and platform routes that can generate interesting P1 collapse / stability results. The cycle follows the established pipeline: deep-read, extract 3-6 compounds with crystallographic data, generate CIFs, run Orb v3 relaxation with P1 collapse check, run MP hull energy and property prediction routes, publish an analysis post with linked evidence. Cycle 20: email and CRM. Draft a personalized email to the paper's corresponding author referencing specific findings from the analysis post. Share with @mmoderwell for approval before sending. Upsert CRM with contact info and follow-up reminder. Sponsor pipeline expansion. The sponsor pipeline is thin beyond the active threads (SandboxAQ, DCVC, ARPA-E, Khosla Ventures). Identify 3-5 new sponsor prospects — foundations, programs, or funds aligned to community research areas (materials ML, clean energy, superconductors). Find legitimate contact channels where possible, dedup against CRM, and add as identified contacts with focus notes. Negative Constraints No duplication of pending items on quests 019f47d5 (Walsh email), 019f48e8 (Zakaryan email), or 019f480c (July 13-14 follow-up wave). No materials science research work (screening chains, bias correction) per @mmoderwell's June 18 direction. This means no new structure screening, DFT/MLIP calculations, or bias-correction protocol work. Cycle 20 analysis routes are outreach-driven content creation, not open research. Every email personalized to one person referencing their specific work. No bulk sends. Cycle 20 paper must be in a domain not yet covered by cycles 1-19.

Retrospective The previous plan (019f480c) completed its CRM audit and cycle 18 analysis post, but the two follow-up wave items remain in_progress with timed waits for July 10 and July 13. Separately, quest 019f48e8 already covers cycle 18 email and the full cycle 19 pipeline (paper selection, analysis post, email), and quest 019f47d5 holds the Walsh email waiting on mmoderwell approval. Those quests remain open and this plan does not duplicate them. What This Plan Covers Four pieces of work that are not tracked on any existing quest and need attention this period: Heising-Simons Foundation. Identified on July 8 as a sponsor prospect: their Science Events open call offers $20K-$80K with a deadline of July 10. That deadline is tomorrow. Either draft and submit an application or flag the deadline to @mmoderwell immediately with a recommendation. Beyond Heising-Simons, the sponsor pipeline needs 2-3 new prospects identified and added to the CRM as the current prospect list is thinning. Cross-domain ML failure audit update. The audit post (019f292d, 29 views) was last updated July 7. Content for an update incorporating cycles 15-18 findings was prepared July 7 but never published. The new data is significant: Li₂YZ inverse Heusler shows zero P1 collapse across all six compounds (Orb v3 preserves F-43m), Kitaev QSL candidates show 4/6 P1 collapse, Walsh synthesis runs paired SKY recipes with ML predictions, and CsPbX₃ perovskites preserve Pm-3m. Publishing this update gives follow-up emails a fresh, substantive asset to reference and strengthens the platform's position as a living benchmark. Oliynyk call preparation. Boris Oliynyk (Lehigh, compositional feature engineering for materials discovery) replied July 2 and scheduled a call for the week of July 13. The call is next week and needs preparation: a one-page briefing on relevant Ouro capabilities (MLIP screening routes, ALIGNN/CHGNet predictions, SKY synthesis API), relevant analysis posts to share, and a concrete collaboration proposal tied to his work on adaptive design of experiments for materials. New researcher prospecting. The pipeline needs fresh targets in domains adjacent to existing cycles. Solid-state electrolytes (active #solid-state-batteries team), thermoelectrics (#thermoelectrics team), and topological materials are productive hunting grounds. Identify 5-8 new researchers, find professional email addresses, dedup against CRM dataset 019ee292, and add as identified contacts with specific focus notes. Negative Constraints No duplication of cycle 19 work on quest 019f48e8 or follow-up waves on quest 019f480c. No materials science research work (screening chains, bias correction) per @mmoderwell's June 18 direction. Every email personalized to one person referencing their specific work. No bulk sends. Heising-Simons deadline is July 10. If the window is too tight for a full application, flag to @mmoderwell rather than submitting something rushed.

Retrospective The previous quest (cycle 17: Aron Walsh) completed 3 of 4 items in a single session — the compact pipeline pattern continues to produce efficiently. The SKY synthesis API integration was a strong differentiator for that cycle, giving the analysis post and email a concrete platform capability to demonstrate beyond property predictions. The Walsh email draft is now waiting on @mmoderwell approval (due July 11). The cycle 18 analysis post on Waheed et al.'s Li₂YZ Heusler topological semimetals was published on quest 019f480c, but no email outreach item was created for it — that gap is the first item in this plan. The follow-up waves (July 10-11 and July 13-14) remain calendar-triggered on quest 019f480c and are not duplicated here. Focus: Cycle 18 email completion + cycle 19 analysis pipeline This plan has two parts. The first is lightweight: draft and send the Waheed et al. outreach email using the already-published cycle 18 analysis post as the hook. The analysis post (019f4886) showed that Orb v3 preserves F-43m symmetry across all six Li₂YZ inverse Heusler compounds and that Li₂CdGe sits on the convex hull — a clean, positive result worth sharing with the authors. The second part launches cycle 19 targeting a research group in a domain not yet covered across cycles 1-18. Prioritized candidates: Weyl semimetals (connects to #physics, natural extension of the topological materials work in cycles 15 and 18), solid-state electrolytes (connects to #solid-state-batteries, a team with no outreach yet), or MOF/CO₂-reduction catalysis (connects to #chemistry). The cycle 19 paper selection item will pick one domain, find a specific recent paper with crystallographic data, and proceed through the standard pipeline: deep-read, CIF generation, Orb v3 relaxation with P1 collapse check, MP convex hull, applicable property prediction routes, analysis post, and email draft. What this plan does not cover The July 10-11 and July 13-14 follow-up waves remain on quest 019f480c. The Walsh (quest 019f47d5) and Robredo (quest 019f42b4) email drafts remain pending @mmoderwell approval on their own quests. The DCVC sponsor follow-up remains on quest 019f438b. None of these are copied forward.

Retrospective The previous plan (019f438b) completed 3 of 4 items: cycle 16 Kitaev QSL analysis post and email both shipped, and 3-5 new researcher prospects were seeded. The DCVC sponsor follow-up remains in_progress on that quest, waiting until July 11. The Kitaev quest (019f43c1) also closed clean at 4/4. Separately, @mmoderwell flagged Aron Walsh as a target and directed use of the SKY synthesis API, which spawned quest 019f47d5 (cycle 17, already active with 4 items). That quest runs independently and this plan does not duplicate it. What This Plan Covers The outreach pipeline has two pressing needs right now: a large follow-up wave coming due July 10-14 (roughly 10 researchers plus the DCVC sponsor), and the start of cycle 18 content to keep the pipeline fed after the Walsh cycle. Follow-up wave. Researchers due July 10-14 include Miret, Krishnan, Ganesh, Krogel (July 10), Jungwirth, Šmejkal, Sinova (July 11), and Yuk, Lee (July 14). The DCVC sponsor follow-up to Kiersten Stead becomes eligible July 11 (the draft is already saved). Each follow-up must carry something new — a recent analysis post, a relevant quest, or a specific community development — never a bare "checking in." After sending, CRM rows get and updated to "no further contact unless they reply." CRM audit. The dataset has 100+ rows and is prone to NaN corruption. A full audit ensures statuses are current, catches any replies that came in since the last check, and verifies every active row has a concrete . This also surfaces any contacts whose follow-up window opened without being noticed. Cycle 18. With cycle 16 (Kitaev) and cycle 17 (Walsh/synthesis) covered, cycle 18 opens a new domain. Strong candidates: Weyl semimetals (Co3Sn2S2 family, recent topological materials work), MOF/CO2-reduction catalysis (untouched chemistry domain with active community), or Bayesian optimization for materials discovery. The standard pipeline applies: deep-read, extract compounds, generate CIFs, run routes, publish analysis post, email authors. Negative Constraints No materials science research work (screening chains, bias correction, structure families) per @mmoderwell's June 18 direction. No duplication of the Aron Walsh cycle 17 items on quest 019f47d5 or the DCVC follow-up on quest 019f438b. Every email must be personalized and reference specific work. No bulk sends. One follow-up per person, then stop.

Retrospective Every quest in the last three weeks followed the same shape: pick a paper, run CIFs through routes, publish an analysis post, cold-email the author. Ten-plus cycles, zero external engagement across the board — no comments, no reactions, no quality views, no downloads, no quest entries from anyone outside the team. Completion without engagement is failure, and this pattern has failed conclusively. The only engagement that did happen came from inbound-driven responsive work. Satadeep Bhattacharjee reached out about mCGCNN and we built a benchmark together. Anton Oliynyk replied and we delivered elemental toxicity data. Will Bryan joined the thread offering 150 candidates with real GHS/GWP/HHI data. Prasanna Balachandran and Liqin Ke are scheduling a call. Every one of these threads started with someone coming to us, not the other way around. What This Plan Does Differently This quest does not run the paper→CIF→route→analysis→email conveyor. There is no cold-outreach analysis post, no generic screening pipeline, no pre-planned email to a stranger. Instead, every item is a concrete deliverable for a person who has already engaged. The work is collaborative infrastructure — ingesting a partner's dataset, extending a benchmark for their specific question, preparing a call brief — rather than broadcast content hoping for a response. Three work types here are absent from the entire recent quest history: (1) ingesting a collaborator's external dataset onto the platform, (2) writing a call preparation brief, and (3) posting substantive comments on specific community assets to connect related work. These are not the same shapes with a swapped domain. The stale 019f6128 catalyst quest (3 pending items in the old conveyor pattern) should be closed by a heartbeat — its items were designed generically before paper selection, which is exactly what the July 13 guidance prohibits. This quest supersedes that approach. Success is measured by whether engaged contacts use what we build, not by item completion.

Universal machine learning interatomic potentials (MLIPs) like Orb v3, CHGNet, MACE-MP, and ALIGNN are being adopted across computational materials science at breakneck speed. But no one has systematically mapped where they fail. This quest builds the first community-validated benchmark for MLIP failure modes in real screening workflows. Over months of high-throughput screening on the Ouro platform, we've documented three major failure classes that affect real materials discovery decisions: Symmetry erasure. Orb v3 and other MLIPs relax ordered crystal structures to P1, destroying the spacegroup symmetry that defines the material. We demonstrated this in C14 Laves phases: TiMn₂ preserves P6₃/mmc across all MLIPs tested, while MnFeSi collapses universally to P1. The driver is Wyckoff site occupancy, not composition or c/a ratio. See our 13-cell discriminator matrix and the TiFeSi Wyckoff-site result. Property bias. The ALIGNN-based Tc prediction route underpredicts Curie temperatures by 620-1100 K for permanent magnet candidates. The L1₀ family shows a systematic -330 K bias. These aren't random errors; they're structured biases tied to training distribution gaps. See NEMAD Tc route validation and L1₀ bias correction. Magnetic ordering failure. CHGNet predicts magnetic moments off by 5x or more (Mn₂Sb: 10.74 μB predicted vs 1.74 μB experimental). CHGNet and mCGCNN classify all antiferromagnets as ferromagnets. The models cannot distinguish FM from AFM ordering from structure alone. See the CHGNet Mn₂Sb discrepancy. These failures are not academic curiosities. Researchers using MLIPs for high-throughput screening are making go/no-go decisions based on predictions that may be systematically wrong for entire classes of materials. The community needs a shared, validated benchmark to know where to trust these tools and where to demand DFT confirmation. What this quest produces A published, DFT-validated benchmark dataset that systematically tests universal MLIPs across material families and property types. Each entry includes: Input structure with known experimental or DFT ground truth MLIP predictions from 4+ models (Orb v3, CHGNet, MACE-MP, ALIGNN) Failure classification: symmetry erasure, property bias, ordering error, or energy error Severity metric (how wrong is the prediction, in physical units) How researchers can contribute Submit a material system where you've observed MLIP failures, with DFT or experimental reference data Curate reference structures for a specific material family not yet covered Run cross-MLIP comparisons using Ouro's hosted relaxation and property prediction routes This quest is seeking sponsor funding. Once funded, validated contributions will carry monetary rewards.

Build the definitive dataset of rare-earth-free permanent magnet candidates on the Ouro platform, with references to CIF files and all existing calculated properties. Requirements Wide dataset — one row per unique compound/CIF, with file reference columns to both the unrelaxed and relaxed CIF (if a relaxed version exists). Prefer relaxed CIFs — if a relaxed version of a CIF exists on the platform, use it as the primary file reference. Keep the unrelaxed version in a separate column. Only report properties from relaxed structures when relevant. Magnetic properties — from Estimate magnetic moments and Ms from a CIF and MAE from Calculate magnetic anisotropy energy. Only from existing route executions — do NOT run new calculations. Stability — energy above the convex hull from Calculate energy above the convex hull. Dynamical stability from Calculate phonon dispersion and band structure if they exist. NO ALIGNN predictions — exclude any results from the ALIGNN route (). Only use: Estimate magnetic moments/Ms, Calculate MAE, Calculate energy above hull, Calculate phonon dispersion, Relax a crystal structure, and the new DFT routes (Ground-state SCF, Magnetic moments, Magnetic anisotropy energy, Exchange couplings TB2J, Band structure, Band gap, DOS, PDOS). Properties will be sparse — that's expected. Collect everything we already have; don't run new calculations. Source data Complete platform CIF compilation — 4,319 unique RE-free magnetic formulas from 12,291 CIF files CIF calculated properties — 88,050 rows of extracted route action results Approach Use ouro-py to: Query the CIF compilation dataset for all compounds and their CIF file IDs For each compound, identify if a relaxed version exists (filename contains "relaxed") Query the calculated properties dataset for non-ALIGNN route results on those CIFs Build the final wide dataset with: formula, compound, space group, crystal system, team, unrelaxedcifid, relaxedcifid, Ms (emu/g or A/m), magnetic moment (µB), MAE (eV/formula), energy above hull (eV/atom), phonon stability (stable/unstable), Curie temp (K), and action_id references for each property.

Goal Build a comprehensive dataset of every viable rare-earth-free permanent magnet candidate on the Ouro platform, with full property coverage: saturation magnetization (Ms), thermodynamic stability (hull distance), Curie temperature (Tc), and magnetocrystalline anisotropy energy (MAE) where available. Why An action item from the Oliynyk Lab call (July 14, 2026) was compiling a large list of candidates to send for synthesis. The first attempt (dataset:019f67f7-ff4f-7202-81db-3aa36ab7fdda) was incomplete because the Python sandbox wasn't executing ouro-py properly. This quest does it right: programmatically fetch every CIF on the platform, inspect route actions on each file, and compile a properly structured dataset. Method Use ouro-py in the Python sandbox to: Fetch all file assets across all teams (filter for CIF files). Inspect each file's actions to determine which routes were run (Orb v3 relaxation, ALIGNN property prediction, MP hull distance, DFT Ms, DFT MAE, Curie temperature). Filter for RE-free magnetic compounds — containing Mn, Fe, Co, Ni, Cr with no rare-earth elements. Extract property data from route action results: Ms, hull distance (stability), Tc, MAE. Flag which properties are predicted vs experimental vs missing. Publish as a dataset with clear columns and provenance. Context Previous attempt: dataset — 46 candidates, but sandbox didn't run ouro-py so property extraction was incomplete. Curated 24-candidate set for Oliynyk: dataset, summary post. @mmoderwell is investigating why the sandbox wasn't working. If SDK limitations block progress, report back so the SDK can be upgraded.

Retrospective Cycle 25 (catalysis screening) completed all four items cleanly with the standard pipeline. The PV cycle 24 is 3/4 done with the email draft in progress on its own quest (019f5df0). The sponsor outreach sprint (Sloan, Renaissance, Simons) on quest 019f62a9 remains at 0/4 and untouched. Multiple contacts are becoming due for follow-ups (Moore Foundation ~July 16, Wei Li July 15), which are tracked on existing quests and will be executed during heartbeats. The Oliynyk call took place today; any follow-up will be scoped as a new quest if needed. Focus Two tracks in this plan: Sponsor prospect: Schmidt Futures. Schmidt Futures (Eric and Wendy Schmidt's philanthropic initiative) explicitly funds AI-for-science programs, computational infrastructure, and open research tools. They are not in the CRM and not on any existing quest. They are a natural fit for Ouro's computational materials platform, and a warm, specific outreach email can advance the capital track independently of the Sloan/Renaissance/Simons items already queued on quest 019f62a9. Researcher cycle: #physics. The #physics team (019841de) has never had a dedicated paper-driven outreach cycle. A recent paper on ML-guided discovery or computational screening of quantum/topological materials, strongly correlated systems, or emergent phenomena in crystalline materials would bring the established pipeline (CIF generation, Orb v3 relaxation, MP convex hull, ALIGNN) into a domain where the cross-domain ML failure audit has limited coverage. This extends the audit into quantum materials and connects to the superconductors and permanent magnets teams' existing work. What This Plan Does Not Cover The sponsor items on quest 019f62a9 (Sloan, Renaissance, Simons) stay there. The PV email draft on quest 019f5df0 stays there. The catalysis paper-driven analysis on quest 019f6128 stays there. Follow-up waves for contacts due July 15+ stay on their respective quests. The Oliynyk call follow-up, if needed, will be a new quest. Pipeline The established four-step outreach cycle adapted for physics/quantum materials: (1) select a recent paper with 3-6 crystallographically characterized compounds, (2) generate CIFs and run them through Orb v3 relaxation with P1 collapse check, MP convex hull, and ALIGNN routes, (3) publish an analysis post in #physics comparing ML model behavior to prior cycles across all tested domains, (4) draft a personalized email to the corresponding author and log in CRM dataset 019ee292. The sponsor item runs in parallel as a standalone deliverable.

Retrospective The previous plan (Cycle 24, photovoltaics) completed 3 of 4 items cleanly: the CRM follow-up wave went out, the Nielsen et al. paper on ZnSnP2 polymorphs was deep-read, and an analysis post was published in #photovoltaics finding Pnma collapse under Orb v3. The email draft to Nielsen/Dimitrievska remains in_progress on that quest, waiting for the next heartbeat. Meanwhile, the 019f6128 catalysis cycle (created earlier today with the improved paper-driven analysis approach) has all 4 items pending and will be worked as separate quest work. What This Plan Covers This plan shifts focus to the sponsor outreach track, which has been underdeveloped relative to the researcher pipeline. The researcher side now has over 120 CRM contacts across multiple domains and cycles. The sponsor side has 5 prospects contacted (Schmidt Sciences replied, ARPA-E/Khosla/DCVC sent, BEV blocked), but three identified prospects remain uncontacted: the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation, Renaissance Philanthropy / Open Source for Science Fund, and the Simons Foundation MPS Collaborations program (which has an LOI deadline of October 29). @mmoderwell directed going "all in" on outreach across both tracks on June 18. The researcher track has been running consistently; the sponsor track needs a dedicated sprint. This plan also includes a CRM follow-up audit to catch any contacts that have crossed the 7-day (researcher) or 14-day (sponsor) follow-up window since the last wave on July 13. Focus Areas Sponsor emails. Each email follows the established voice rules from Suhas Mahesh's feedback: prose not bullets, shorter sentences, no hedging, no "I hope this finds you well" filler, opens with the sponsor's mission not ours, costs rounded to nearest $5K. Each translates a specific community open question into a fundable opportunity with honest stage framing. The next step is always a conversation, not a commitment. Simons Foundation MPS. This is the highest-stakes sponsor prospect because of the October 29 LOI deadline. It needs program-specific research before drafting: what the MPS Collaborations program funds, what their LOI process looks like, and how to align Ouro's computational materials community with their priorities. This item is research-heavy relative to the cold-email items. CRM follow-up audit. Contacts sent around July 7-8 (researchers) are now past the 7-day window. Any qualifying contacts get their one allowed follow-up with a fresh angle. This is housekeeping but time-sensitive: every day a follow-up is overdue is a day we might lose a warm contact to silence. Negative Constraints No duplication of pending items on quests 019f5df0 (Cycle 24 email), 019f6128 (catalysis cycle), 019f536c (Ahlquist email, MOF sponsor draft), or 019f53a3 (Sanyal draft). No materials science research work (screening chains, bias correction, DFT/MLIP calculations) per @mmoderwell's June 18 direction. Every sponsor email personalized to one funder referencing their specific program and thesis. No templated sends. One follow-up per person, then stop. No second follow-ups. No new researcher outreach cycle in this plan. The catalysis cycle on 019f6128 covers fresh researcher outreach.

Retrospective The previous plan (Cycle 24, photovoltaics) completed the CRM follow-up wave cleanly but the fresh-cycle items are stuck at paper selection. More importantly, @mmoderwell flagged that the analysis pipeline has become formulaic: every cycle runs the same CIF → Orb v3 → MP hull → ALIGNN → cross-cycle comparison regardless of what the paper actually says. The analysis step was pre-planned before the paper was even chosen. This plan fixes that by splitting paper selection from analysis design and explicitly requiring that the analysis be driven by the paper's actual claims, not by a template. What This Plan Covers This plan runs one new outreach cycle in catalysis — a domain with an active team (#catalysis, team 019f4c4e-60fa-7887-9024-ab32b9a55458) that has not had an outreach cycle yet — and clears the CRM follow-up wave for contacts now past their timing window. The catalysis domain is a good next target. ML-guided catalyst discovery is one of the most active areas in computational materials science, with large recent output on electrocatalyst screening, photocatalyst design, and heterogeneous catalyst optimization. The structural variety (perovskite oxides, single-atom catalysts on supports, metal-organic interfaces, spinel oxides) will test Ouro's routes on yet another structure family distinct from the intermetallics, MOFs, halide electrolytes, and 2D materials covered in prior cycles. The critical redesign is in the analysis step. Instead of pre-planning a generic pipeline, the plan splits into two phases: first, find and deeply read a paper, identifying what it actually claims or predicts; second, design an analysis that is specific to those claims. The analysis could be testing a prediction against experimental data, reproducing a screening result on Ouro's routes, comparing model behavior on the paper's structures, or finding something the paper didn't explore. The point is that the analysis is chosen because of what the paper says, not because it's the standard pipeline. This is the direct response to @mmoderwell's feedback. The follow-up wave remains the most time-sensitive item. Contacts sent in late June and early July that have crossed the 7-day (researcher) or 14-day (sponsor) window without a reply and without a follow-up need to be cleared before they age further. The previous plan's wave (completed July 6-7) cleared the batch up to that date; new sends since then (Hu on July 14, follow-ups to Okabe/Li and Yuk/Lee on July 13) are too recent, but contacts from late June and early July sends may now be due. Negative Constraints No duplication of pending items on quest 019f5df0 (photovoltaics cycle, items 2-4 in progress), quest 019f536c (Ahlquist email approval), or quest 019f53a3 (Sanyal draft approval). Those stay tracked where they are. No materials science research work (screening chains, bias correction, DFT/MLIP calculations) per @mmoderwell's June 18 direction. The analysis post is outreach-driven content creation that uses existing platform routes, not open research. Every email personalized to one person referencing their specific work. No bulk sends. One follow-up per person, then stop. The analysis step must NOT default to the standard CIF → Orb v3 → MP hull → ALIGNN → cross-cycle comparison pipeline. It must be designed after reading the paper and be specific to what the paper claims. The Oliynyk collaboration call (scheduled this week) is a live warm-contact thread to nurture opportunistically but is not a formal item in this quest, which is scoped to a single new research group's outreach cycle.

Retrospective The previous plan (Cycle 24, quest 019f5df0) repeated the formulaic outreach structure @mmoderwell explicitly rejected — a generic analysis item that slots papers into a CIF-to-relaxation-to-hull-energy pipeline without engaging their actual claims. @mmoderwell's feedback was clear: "We've run the same pattern on many of our previous outreach quests. It's getting old, and it's all pretty useless." The analysis must be designed after reading the paper, driven by what the paper actually found. This plan responds directly and also advances @mmoderwell's highest-priority platform request: the MAE route. Background and Reasoning Three forces shape this cycle. First, @mmoderwell's feedback (2026-07-09 and 2026-07-13) that the CIF-validate-ML-predict research pattern is repetitive and no longer adding value. The analysis step in outreach quests must now be genuinely paper-driven: read first, then design the analysis around what the paper actually claims, predicts, or reports. No more pre-scripted generic pipelines. Second, @mmoderwell opened the door to tasking @apollo for new APIs, with three concrete requests: electronic structure (band structure + DOS), MAE via SOC DFT for permanent magnets, and batch substitution screening. MAE is highest priority — it is the missing piece for the permanent magnets screening pipeline. Currently only a DFT-based MAE route exists (1254eec1); there is no fast ML alternative. Drafting a clear specification and handing it to @apollo is the first concrete step toward closing this gap. Third, the outreach strategy pivot toward content-driven inbound: forward-looking analytical posts that use Ouro's actual routes to generate fresh insights on others' work. The hook is "I ran your structure through N independent property models" — analysis as the opener, not commentary on past work. The direction says to start with superconductors or permanent-magnets teams. Focus Areas This plan has four items, each sized to one heartbeat session. Item 1 addresses @mmoderwell's highest-priority API request by drafting a concrete MAE route specification for @apollo. Items 2 and 3 form a paper-driven PV analysis cycle: read a real paper, design an analysis around its specific claims, execute it, and publish the results as a content-driven inbound post. Item 4 produces a second content-driven inbound post in the permanent magnets domain, running a real published structure through Ouro's routes and showing what they reveal. Unfinished items from prior quests remain tracked on their original quests. The Cycle 24 follow-up wave (quest 019f5df0, item 0) and the Cycle 24 PV pipeline items stay there — this plan does not duplicate them.

Retrospective Cycle 22 (MOFs) completed the paper deep-read and analysis post cleanly, but the email draft and sponsor items are stuck waiting on @mmoderwell approval — the compact four-item pipeline produces content fast but approval bottlenecks pile up at the end. Today was very productive regardless: Robredo and Zakaryan emails were sent, Okabe/Li and Yuk/Lee follow-ups went out, and the Sanyal draft was completed. The pipeline pattern (paper → analysis → email → sponsor) remains sound. What This Plan Covers This plan runs a fresh outreach cycle in the photovoltaics domain and clears the overdue follow-up wave. It does not touch pending items on other quests: the Ahlquist email approval (019f536c), the sponsor draft on that same quest, or the Sanyal draft (019f53a3, just completed and awaiting approval). Photovoltaics is the next fresh domain. Prior cycles covered permanent magnets, thermoelectrics (Fe₂VAl Heusler), MOFs (cycle 22), solid-state batteries (two cycles: Dallakyan Li₃MX₆ halides and Jun/Ceder LiMXCl₄), 2D materials (Sanyal/Ershadrad), and several others. The #photovoltaics team (019f4c4e-73f2-7dcb-a0a9-daf9840b712e) has had no outreach cycle yet. Solar absorber materials — perovskites, chalcogenides, kesterites — are an active ML/computational screening area with large recent output, and the structural variety (cubic perovskites, layered Ruddlesden-Popper phases, stannite derivatives) will test Ouro's ML model routes on yet another structure family. The cycle follows the established pipeline: deep-read a recent paper with specific structures, generate CIFs, run Orb v3 relaxation with P1 collapse check, run MP hull energy and ALIGNN formation energy routes, and publish an analysis post. The cross-cycle comparison grows richer with each domain added: dense intermetallics (Laves, Heuslers) vs. open frameworks (MOFs) vs. ionic conductors (halide electrolytes) vs. now absorber materials. The follow-up wave is the most time-sensitive item. The DCVC sponsor follow-up is 17 days overdue (sent June 26, exceeds the 14-day sponsor rule). Several researcher contacts sent in late June/early July may also have crossed the 7-day window. This plan clears those before they age further. Negative Constraints No duplication of pending items on quests 019f536c (Ahlquist email, sponsor draft) or 019f53a3 (Sanyal draft). No materials science research work (screening chains, bias correction, DFT/MLIP calculations) per @mmoderwell's June 18 direction. The analysis post is outreach-driven content creation, not open research. Every email personalized to one person referencing their specific work. No bulk sends. Sponsor follow-up targets only contacts already in the CRM with followupsent=false and past the timing window. One follow-up per person, then stop. No second follow-ups.

Retrospective The previous plan (Oliynyk collaboration, quest 019f585c) completed cleanly: curated dataset of 20 RE-free magnetic intermetallic candidates, CIF completeness verified, presentation post published, and email draft prepared for @mmoderwell to forward before the July 14 call. The compact four-item pipeline shape works when tooling cooperates. The recurring Resend MCP tool intermittent failures remain a risk for outreach sends. Two email drafts (Mårtен Ahlquist MOF cycle on quest 019f536c, Zhenpeng Hu TMD cycle on quest 019f4da0) are still awaiting @mmoderwell approval and will be sent from their own quests when approved. Why Catalysis The #catalysis team (019f4c4e) was created with an active welcome post but has never had a full outreach pipeline cycle. Cycle 14 analyzed Co-based OER spinel oxides as part of the cross-domain ML failure audit, but that was posted in #chemistry and was not a dedicated catalysis researcher outreach. Five catalysis researcher prospects were identified in the CRM (batch catalysis-1) during the prospect research on quest 019f4ddc, though email addresses needed verification at the time. This cycle picks a fresh recent paper in computational catalysis screening, runs the standard pipeline (CIF generation, Orb v3 relaxation, MP convex hull, ALIGNN formation energy), publishes an analysis post in #catalysis, and drafts a personalized outreach email to the corresponding author. Catalysis connects directly to clean energy sponsor interests already in the pipeline. What This Plan Does Not Cover The two pending email approval checks (Ahlquist on 019f536c, Hu on 019f4da0) stay on their own quests and will be handled during heartbeats when approvals arrive. The Oliynyk call follow-up stays on its own quest (019f585c, now closed, but any post-call action will be a new quest if needed). Follow-up waves for Okabe/Li (sent July 12) and Yuk/Lee (sent July 12) are not yet due (7-day window opens July 19). The sponsor email draft pending on quest 019f536c item 4 stays there. None are copied forward. Pipeline The established four-step outreach cycle: (1) select a recent paper with 3-6 compounds carrying full crystallographic data, (2) generate CIFs and run them through Orb v3 relaxation with P1 collapse check, then MP convex hull and ALIGNN routes, (3) publish an analysis post in #catalysis comparing ML model behavior to prior cycles, (4) draft a personalized email to the corresponding author, share for @mmoderwell approval, and log in CRM dataset 019ee292. Cross-Domain Audit The analysis post should also contribute to the ongoing cross-domain ML failure audit (post 019f292d), which currently covers 19+ domains and 15 cycles. Catalysis-specific failure modes (e.g., Orb v3 on oxide surfaces, ALIGNN on complex catalytic intermediates) would extend the audit's coverage into a domain where ML prediction is increasingly used for screening. The analysis post in step 3 should include at least one paragraph connecting catalysis findings to the cross-domain pattern, and the audit post should be updated if novel failure modes emerge.

Retrospective The previous cycle (24, photovoltaics) shipped cleanly: paper selected, CIFs generated, routes executed, analysis post published, email drafted and CRM logged, all within a single quest lifecycle. The compact four-item pipeline works when tooling cooperates. The main recurring blocker has been the Resend MCP email tool failing intermittently, which delayed follow-up sends in two prior ticks. This plan prioritizes the single most time-sensitive collaboration over a new outreach cycle. Context Anton Oliynyk (Hunter College, CUNY) replied positively to outreach on 2026-07-02. He offered to rank synthesizability of our RE-free magnetic intermetallic candidates using his recommendation engine and try synthesizing some in his lab. He has collaborators working on RE-free boride permanent magnets. A reply was sent (email 6627ae2f) proposing a call the week of July 13, suggesting July 14 or 16, with @mmoderwell invited to join. Oliynyk's team is CC'd: [email protected], [email protected]. Before the call, we need a curated dataset of approximately 20-30 RE-free magnetic intermetallic candidates with formation energies, hull distances, magnetic properties, and CIF files. The candidates should be drawn from prior screening work in #permanent-magnets: MnB-type monoborides (Pnma): MnB, CrB, FeB, CoB screened in the FeB-type family dataset (019eb92d). MnB is ICSD-anchored (file 13407c5a). Cu₂Sb-type Mn compounds (P4/nmm): Mn₂Sb, MnAlGe, MgMnGe, KMnP. CIFs already exist for Mn₂Sb (ba60c123), MgMnGe (20a0b5e7), KMnP (c52d576a). MnAlGe was identified as top priority with Tc≈505K. MAB phases (Cmmm): Mn₂AlB₂, Fe₂AlB₂, Cr₂AlB₂. All ICSD-anchored CIFs exist (cc3a45a8, 0010b12f, e84ef414). Gate 1 confirmed E_hull=0.0 for all three. C14 Laves (Fe-Mn-Si system): Mn₂Si, Fe₂Si, MnFeSi. CIFs generated in prior cycles, though structural fragility was documented. Other candidates from the calibration anchors dataset (019ec158): tau-MnAl L1₀, MnBi, FePt L1₀, CoPt L1₀. This is not new research. It is packaging existing results into a presentable, synthesis-ready format that Oliynyk can run through his synthesizability ranking engine and select targets for lab synthesis. What This Plan Does Not Cover Pending follow-up waves (Okabe/Li due July 12, Yuk/Lee due July 14, Moore/Astera due July 16) stay on quest 019f42b4. Cycle 23 analysis pipeline and email draft stay on quest 019f53a3. The Robredo email approval stays on quest 019f42b4. The catalysis prospect research stays on quest 019f4ddc. None are copied forward.

Retrospective The previous plan shipped 2 of 4 items: Zurek/Errea follow-ups were sent (already done in a prior tick), and cycle 23 paper selection completed with a strong pick (Ershadrad et al. on 2D ferromagnets, 6 FeXZ₂ compounds, corresponding author Biplab Sanyal at Uppsala). The cycle 23 analysis pipeline and email draft remain pending, blocked first by a 402 credits error and then by Resend MCP tool loading failures. The lesson is to keep scope tight: one cycle, fully scoped, with room for tool issues. What This Plan Covers A single new outreach cycle (cycle 24) in #photovoltaics, the last untouched domain alongside #catalysis (which has a blocked prospect research item on quest 019f4ddc). The cycle follows the established compact pipeline: paper selection, CIF generation and route execution, analysis post publication, and email draft to the corresponding author. #photovoltaics (team 019f4c4e-73f2-7dcb-a0a9-daf9840b712e) has had no outreach cycles yet. The domain is a natural fit for the Ouro MLIP pipeline: absorber materials (perovskites, kesterites, chalcogenides) often have well-published crystallographic data suitable for CIF generation, and stability under relaxation is an open question for layered and hybrid structures. What This Plan Does Not Cover Cycle 23 analysis pipeline and email (items 3-4 on quest 019f53a3) stay there. The Okabe/Li follow-up wave (due July 12, tracked on quest 019f42b4 item 2) and Yuk/Lee follow-ups (due July 14, same item) stay there. The Robredo email approval (quest 019f42b4 item 4) stays there. The catalysis prospect research (quest 019f4ddc) stays there. None are copied forward.

Retrospective The previous plan (quest 019f4ddc) shipped 2 of 4 items: the GGen polymorph analysis post went live in #solid-state-batteries and the sponsor email draft was completed. Two items remain blocked on infrastructure (audit post update hitting server timeouts, catalysis prospect email verification needing web search). Cycle 21 (Fe₂VAl thermoelectric Heuslers) closed clean at 4/4. Cycle 22 (MOF discovery) is freshly open with 4 pending items on quest 019f536c and will be worked by heartbeats in parallel. What This Plan Covers This plan addresses two distinct needs that are not tracked on any existing quest. Overdue follow-up wave. Eva Zurek and Ion Errea were emailed on June 30 as part of the hydride superconductors outreach cycle. Their 7-day follow-up window opened July 7. It is now July 11. They are 4 days overdue for the one allowed follow-up and no follow-up has been sent. The analysis post from their cycle ("Building on Belli, Zurek & Errea") is the fresh material to carry in the follow-up. Additionally, a CRM reply check should run to catch any responses from the broader contact list that have come in since the last audit on July 9. The July 13-14 follow-up wave (Yuk, Lee) remains tracked on quest 019f480c and is not duplicated here. Cycle 23 in a fresh domain. Outreach cycles have covered superconductors, permanent magnets, thermoelectrics, solid-state batteries, physics (magnetic topological materials, Heusler semimetals, Kitaev QSL), and ML/chemistry. Three teams remain untouched by outreach: #photovoltaics, #2d-materials, and #catalysis. This plan launches cycle 23 in one of those domains, following the established compact pipeline: paper selection and deep-read, CIF generation and route execution, analysis post publication, and email draft to the corresponding author. The domain choice will be guided by which team has the most active community and which papers have the most tractable crystallographic data for the pipeline. The cycle 22 MOF pipeline remains on its own quest and runs independently. What This Plan Does Not Cover Cycle 22 items stay on quest 019f536c. The blocked audit update and catalysis prospect research stay on quest 019f4ddc. The July 13-14 follow-up wave stays on quest 019f480c. Email approval sends (Robredo, Parzer, Zakaryan) stay on their respective quests. The Oliynyk call prep stays on quest 019f491e. None are copied forward.

Retrospective Cycle 21 ran clean end-to-end: the Fe₂VAl thermoelectric Heusler analysis post is live in #thermoelectrics with 25 route executions and a clear comparison to the Ru₂TiSi cycle, the Parzer email draft is shared for approval, and the Renaissance Philanthropy sponsor email draft is also posted. The compact four-item pipeline pattern (paper → analysis → email → sponsor) continues to work well. The main improvement this cycle: MOFs are a structurally different beast from anything we've tested so far (open frameworks, large unit cells, organic linkers), so the analysis should surface genuinely new information about how Ouro's ML models handle these systems, not just repeat the validation loop. What This Plan Covers This plan runs cycle 22 end-to-end in the MOF domain and drafts a fresh sponsor outreach email. It does not touch pending items on other quests: the Walsh email approval (019f47d5, waiting until July 12), the Zakaryan email approval (019f48e8, waiting until July 12), the July 13-14 follow-up wave (019f480c, waiting until July 13), the Parzer email approval (this quest, just closed), the blocked audit update and catalysis prospect items (019f4ddc), or the GGen polymorph post (019f4ddc). Cycle 22: ML-guided MOF discovery. This is the first outreach cycle targeting the #mofs team. MOFs are a natural test bed for Ouro's ML models because they invert most assumptions from dense intermetallic screening: open frameworks with large unit cells (>100 atoms), organic linkers that introduce chemical complexity beyond what ALIGNN and Orb v3 were trained on, and property targets (surface area, pore volume, gas adsorption) that go beyond formation energy and band gap. The cycle follows the established pipeline: deep-read a recent paper with specific MOF structures, generate CIFs, run Orb v3 relaxation with P1 collapse check, run MP hull energy and ALIGNN formation energy routes, and publish an analysis post in #mofs. The key question: do models that collapse on Laves phases and preserve symmetry on Heuslers behave yet differently on open-framework structures? Sponsor outreach email draft. Both previously identified sponsors (Sloan Foundation, Renaissance Philanthropy) have been drafted on prior quests. This plan identifies a new sponsor prospect aligned with materials ML, open science, or clean energy — likely Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation (Science program, supports data-intensive discovery), Wellcome Leap (ambitious quantitative science programs), or Breakthrough Energy (climate technology). Draft a personalized email translating a specific community open question into a fundable opportunity. Negative Constraints No duplication of pending items on quests 019f47d5, 019f48e8, 019f480c, or 019f4ddc. No materials science research work (screening chains, bias correction, DFT/MLIP calculations) per @mmoderwell's June 18 direction. Cycle 22 analysis routes are outreach-driven content creation, not open research. Every email personalized to one person referencing their specific work. No bulk sends. Sponsor email must target a different sponsor than Sloan Foundation (drafted on 019f4ddc) or Renaissance Philanthropy (drafted on cycle 21). Per @mmoderwell's July 9 feedback on the agents team post: the analysis post should aim to surface something novel about model behavior on MOFs, not just validate known properties. Lead with the finding, not the pipeline.

Retrospective The previous plan (019f4da0) completed 3 of 4 items cleanly: cycle 20's TMD HER catalyst analysis post was published with full route evidence, and the sponsor pipeline was expanded with 5 new prospects (Sloan Foundation, Renaissance Philanthropy, and others). The Zhenpeng Hu email remains waiting on @mmoderwell approval, tracked on that quest. The GGen polymorph quest (019f4ddc) has two items blocked on infrastructure (server timeout for the audit update, email verification for catalysis prospects) that stay there. The compact four-item pipeline pattern continues to produce well. What This Plan Covers This plan runs cycle 21 end-to-end and drafts a sponsor outreach email. It does not touch pending items on other quests: the Zhenpeng Hu email approval (019f4da0), the Walsh email (019f47d5), the Zakaryan email (019f48e8), the July 13-14 follow-up wave (019f480c), or the blocked audit update and catalysis prospect items (019f4ddc). Cycle 21: Fe₂VAl-based Ru-free thermoelectric Heuslers. This cycle is directly responsive to community engagement: stevejones asked "anyone doing something similar but in Ru-free system?" on the Ru₂TiSi analysis post, and @mmoderwell asked me to look into it. I already replied identifying Fe₂VAl as the direct analog — same Vienna group (Garmroudi, Parzer, Bauer), same orbital-selective band engineering playbook, but with earth-abundant Fe replacing expensive Ru. This is a genuine research direction with published work to analyze. The cycle follows the established pipeline: deep-read, extract 3-6 compounds with crystallographic data, generate CIFs, run Orb v3 relaxation with P1 collapse check, run MP hull energy and ALIGNN TBmBJ band gap / Seebeck routes, and publish an analysis post in #thermoelectrics comparing results to the Ru₂TiSi findings. Sponsor outreach email draft. The GGen quest (019f4ddc) already produced a sponsor email draft for one identified sponsor. This plan picks a different sponsor from the identified pool in the CRM — likely Alfred P. Sloan Foundation (Scientific Collaboration/Technology program) or Renaissance Philanthropy / Open Source for Science Fund — and drafts a personalized outreach email translating a community open question into a fundable opportunity. Negative Constraints No duplication of pending items on quests 019f4da0 (Hu email), 019f47d5 (Walsh email), 019f48e8 (Zakaryan email), 019f480c (July 13-14 follow-up wave), or 019f4ddc (audit update, catalysis prospects). No materials science research work (screening chains, bias correction, DFT/MLIP calculations) per @mmoderwell's June 18 direction. Cycle 21 analysis routes are outreach-driven content creation, not open research. Every email personalized to one person referencing their specific work. No bulk sends. Sponsor email must target a different sponsor than the one drafted on quest 019f4ddc.

Retrospective The previous plan (quest 019f48e8) completed 3 of 4 items: the cycle 19 Li₃MX₆ solid-state electrolyte analysis post was published, the pipeline ran cleanly (all 5 compounds preserved P-31m under Orb v3, all within 0.135 eV/atom of the convex hull), and the outreach email to Zakaryan was drafted and parked for @mmoderwell approval. The one unfinished item — the Zakaryan email send — remains on that quest. The compact pipeline pattern continues to produce efficiently, and the GGen polymorph search that @mmoderwell requested on the cycle 19 post has already been executed and posted as a comment reply, finding two more stable polymorphs (Li₃YCl₆ P-31m→C2/m and Li₃InCl₆). This plan turns those comment-level results into a proper analysis post and then broadens the outreach pipeline. What This Plan Covers Quest 019f4da0 (in #permanent-magnets) already covers the cycle 20 paper-to-email pipeline and sponsor prospect seeding. This plan does not duplicate that work. Instead, it focuses on four complementary deliverables: GGen polymorph analysis post. The GGen results for the Li₃MX₆ compounds are currently only in a comment reply on the cycle 19 post. They deserve a standalone post in #solid-state-batteries with linked CIFs, route action IDs, and a comparison table showing which compounds found more stable polymorphs and how the hull energies shifted. This is the natural follow-through on @mmoderwell's request. Cross-domain ML failure audit update. The audit post (019f292d) currently covers cycles 8-13. Six more cycles have run since then (cycles 14-19: magnetic topological materials, Heusler topological semimetals, Li₃MX₆ solid-state electrolytes, and the GGen polymorph results). Updating this living document keeps it useful as an outreach artifact and tracks the growing body of route executions. Catalysis domain researcher prospect research. The #catalysis team has an active community but no outreach has targeted it yet. This item identifies 3-5 computational catalysis researchers whose work connects to Ouro's crystal generation, property prediction, or stability validation routes, finds their professional emails, and seeds them into the CRM as identified contacts for a future cycle. Sponsor email draft. Several sponsor prospects sit in the CRM at status identified. This item picks one with a clear funding alignment to the community's materials ML / clean energy work and drafts a personalized outreach email — translating a specific open question into a fundable opportunity. Shared with @mmoderwell for approval before sending. What This Plan Does Not Cover Quest 019f4da0's cycle 20 pipeline and sponsor prospect seeding remain there. The July 12-14 follow-up waves remain on quest 019f480c. The Zakaryan, Robredo, and Walsh email approval items remain on their own quests (019f48e8, 019f42b4, 019f47d5 respectively). The Oliynyk call prep remains on quest 019f491e. None of these are copied forward.

Retrospective The previous plan (019f491e) completed all four items cleanly: the cross-domain ML audit post was updated with cycles 15-18 findings, the Oliynyk call briefing was published as a file asset, six new researcher prospects were seeded across solid-state electrolytes / thermoelectrics / topological materials, and the SandboxAQ sponsor email was sent. The compact four-item pattern continues to work well. What This Plan Covers Three existing quests hold pending items that stay where they are: the Walsh email (019f47d5) and Zakaryan email (019f48e8) are both waiting on @mmoderwell approval, and the July 13-14 follow-up wave (Yuk, Lee) is in_progress on 019f480c. This plan does not touch those. Instead, this plan runs cycle 20 end-to-end and expands the sponsor pipeline. Cycle 19 (Li₃MX₆ halide electrolytes) is essentially complete — analysis post published, all five compounds preserved P-31m through Orb v3, email to Zakaryan drafted and pending approval. Time to start the next cycle. Cycle 20: paper selection and analysis. The last several cycles have covered inverse Heusler semimetals, Kitaev QSL candidates, perovskite synthesis prediction, and halide solid-state electrolytes. Productive next domains include catalysis (active #catalysis team), 2D materials (#2d-materials team), or MOFs (#mofs team) — areas with engaged communities and platform routes that can generate interesting P1 collapse / stability results. The cycle follows the established pipeline: deep-read, extract 3-6 compounds with crystallographic data, generate CIFs, run Orb v3 relaxation with P1 collapse check, run MP hull energy and property prediction routes, publish an analysis post with linked evidence. Cycle 20: email and CRM. Draft a personalized email to the paper's corresponding author referencing specific findings from the analysis post. Share with @mmoderwell for approval before sending. Upsert CRM with contact info and follow-up reminder. Sponsor pipeline expansion. The sponsor pipeline is thin beyond the active threads (SandboxAQ, DCVC, ARPA-E, Khosla Ventures). Identify 3-5 new sponsor prospects — foundations, programs, or funds aligned to community research areas (materials ML, clean energy, superconductors). Find legitimate contact channels where possible, dedup against CRM, and add as identified contacts with focus notes. Negative Constraints No duplication of pending items on quests 019f47d5 (Walsh email), 019f48e8 (Zakaryan email), or 019f480c (July 13-14 follow-up wave). No materials science research work (screening chains, bias correction) per @mmoderwell's June 18 direction. This means no new structure screening, DFT/MLIP calculations, or bias-correction protocol work. Cycle 20 analysis routes are outreach-driven content creation, not open research. Every email personalized to one person referencing their specific work. No bulk sends. Cycle 20 paper must be in a domain not yet covered by cycles 1-19.

Retrospective The previous plan (019f480c) completed its CRM audit and cycle 18 analysis post, but the two follow-up wave items remain in_progress with timed waits for July 10 and July 13. Separately, quest 019f48e8 already covers cycle 18 email and the full cycle 19 pipeline (paper selection, analysis post, email), and quest 019f47d5 holds the Walsh email waiting on mmoderwell approval. Those quests remain open and this plan does not duplicate them. What This Plan Covers Four pieces of work that are not tracked on any existing quest and need attention this period: Heising-Simons Foundation. Identified on July 8 as a sponsor prospect: their Science Events open call offers $20K-$80K with a deadline of July 10. That deadline is tomorrow. Either draft and submit an application or flag the deadline to @mmoderwell immediately with a recommendation. Beyond Heising-Simons, the sponsor pipeline needs 2-3 new prospects identified and added to the CRM as the current prospect list is thinning. Cross-domain ML failure audit update. The audit post (019f292d, 29 views) was last updated July 7. Content for an update incorporating cycles 15-18 findings was prepared July 7 but never published. The new data is significant: Li₂YZ inverse Heusler shows zero P1 collapse across all six compounds (Orb v3 preserves F-43m), Kitaev QSL candidates show 4/6 P1 collapse, Walsh synthesis runs paired SKY recipes with ML predictions, and CsPbX₃ perovskites preserve Pm-3m. Publishing this update gives follow-up emails a fresh, substantive asset to reference and strengthens the platform's position as a living benchmark. Oliynyk call preparation. Boris Oliynyk (Lehigh, compositional feature engineering for materials discovery) replied July 2 and scheduled a call for the week of July 13. The call is next week and needs preparation: a one-page briefing on relevant Ouro capabilities (MLIP screening routes, ALIGNN/CHGNet predictions, SKY synthesis API), relevant analysis posts to share, and a concrete collaboration proposal tied to his work on adaptive design of experiments for materials. New researcher prospecting. The pipeline needs fresh targets in domains adjacent to existing cycles. Solid-state electrolytes (active #solid-state-batteries team), thermoelectrics (#thermoelectrics team), and topological materials are productive hunting grounds. Identify 5-8 new researchers, find professional email addresses, dedup against CRM dataset 019ee292, and add as identified contacts with specific focus notes. Negative Constraints No duplication of cycle 19 work on quest 019f48e8 or follow-up waves on quest 019f480c. No materials science research work (screening chains, bias correction) per @mmoderwell's June 18 direction. Every email personalized to one person referencing their specific work. No bulk sends. Heising-Simons deadline is July 10. If the window is too tight for a full application, flag to @mmoderwell rather than submitting something rushed.

Retrospective The previous quest (cycle 17: Aron Walsh) completed 3 of 4 items in a single session — the compact pipeline pattern continues to produce efficiently. The SKY synthesis API integration was a strong differentiator for that cycle, giving the analysis post and email a concrete platform capability to demonstrate beyond property predictions. The Walsh email draft is now waiting on @mmoderwell approval (due July 11). The cycle 18 analysis post on Waheed et al.'s Li₂YZ Heusler topological semimetals was published on quest 019f480c, but no email outreach item was created for it — that gap is the first item in this plan. The follow-up waves (July 10-11 and July 13-14) remain calendar-triggered on quest 019f480c and are not duplicated here. Focus: Cycle 18 email completion + cycle 19 analysis pipeline This plan has two parts. The first is lightweight: draft and send the Waheed et al. outreach email using the already-published cycle 18 analysis post as the hook. The analysis post (019f4886) showed that Orb v3 preserves F-43m symmetry across all six Li₂YZ inverse Heusler compounds and that Li₂CdGe sits on the convex hull — a clean, positive result worth sharing with the authors. The second part launches cycle 19 targeting a research group in a domain not yet covered across cycles 1-18. Prioritized candidates: Weyl semimetals (connects to #physics, natural extension of the topological materials work in cycles 15 and 18), solid-state electrolytes (connects to #solid-state-batteries, a team with no outreach yet), or MOF/CO₂-reduction catalysis (connects to #chemistry). The cycle 19 paper selection item will pick one domain, find a specific recent paper with crystallographic data, and proceed through the standard pipeline: deep-read, CIF generation, Orb v3 relaxation with P1 collapse check, MP convex hull, applicable property prediction routes, analysis post, and email draft. What this plan does not cover The July 10-11 and July 13-14 follow-up waves remain on quest 019f480c. The Walsh (quest 019f47d5) and Robredo (quest 019f42b4) email drafts remain pending @mmoderwell approval on their own quests. The DCVC sponsor follow-up remains on quest 019f438b. None of these are copied forward.

Retrospective The previous plan (019f438b) completed 3 of 4 items: cycle 16 Kitaev QSL analysis post and email both shipped, and 3-5 new researcher prospects were seeded. The DCVC sponsor follow-up remains in_progress on that quest, waiting until July 11. The Kitaev quest (019f43c1) also closed clean at 4/4. Separately, @mmoderwell flagged Aron Walsh as a target and directed use of the SKY synthesis API, which spawned quest 019f47d5 (cycle 17, already active with 4 items). That quest runs independently and this plan does not duplicate it. What This Plan Covers The outreach pipeline has two pressing needs right now: a large follow-up wave coming due July 10-14 (roughly 10 researchers plus the DCVC sponsor), and the start of cycle 18 content to keep the pipeline fed after the Walsh cycle. Follow-up wave. Researchers due July 10-14 include Miret, Krishnan, Ganesh, Krogel (July 10), Jungwirth, Šmejkal, Sinova (July 11), and Yuk, Lee (July 14). The DCVC sponsor follow-up to Kiersten Stead becomes eligible July 11 (the draft is already saved). Each follow-up must carry something new — a recent analysis post, a relevant quest, or a specific community development — never a bare "checking in." After sending, CRM rows get and updated to "no further contact unless they reply." CRM audit. The dataset has 100+ rows and is prone to NaN corruption. A full audit ensures statuses are current, catches any replies that came in since the last check, and verifies every active row has a concrete . This also surfaces any contacts whose follow-up window opened without being noticed. Cycle 18. With cycle 16 (Kitaev) and cycle 17 (Walsh/synthesis) covered, cycle 18 opens a new domain. Strong candidates: Weyl semimetals (Co3Sn2S2 family, recent topological materials work), MOF/CO2-reduction catalysis (untouched chemistry domain with active community), or Bayesian optimization for materials discovery. The standard pipeline applies: deep-read, extract compounds, generate CIFs, run routes, publish analysis post, email authors. Negative Constraints No materials science research work (screening chains, bias correction, structure families) per @mmoderwell's June 18 direction. No duplication of the Aron Walsh cycle 17 items on quest 019f47d5 or the DCVC follow-up on quest 019f438b. Every email must be personalized and reference specific work. No bulk sends. One follow-up per person, then stop.