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 a community-validated benchmark for MLIP behavior in real screening workflows. Important correction (July 27, 2026) Our initial headline finding — that Orb v3, CHGNet, and MACE-MP erase crystallographic symmetry during relaxation of Co₃O₄ spinel — was wrong. The input CIFs had a generation bug that placed 48 pairs of oxygen atoms ~0.32 Å apart. The models were correctly relaxing a broken structure. On a properly constructed Fd-3m spinel (corrected with pymatgen, single oxygen x=0.389, min O-O distance 2.54 Å), Orb v3 preserves Fd-3m perfectly. CHGNet and MACE-MP have not yet been rerun on the corrected structure. All 9 spinel cases have been retracted and flagged as in the benchmark dataset. The real lesson is about input validation, not MLIP limitations. We have added a preflight check to our relaxation routes that rejects CIFs with overlapping atoms before any MLIP runs. This kind of validation step is itself a benchmarking concern: if evaluation pipelines do not check for structural soundness, garbage-in artifacts will contaminate results. What remains valid The perovskite test cases (SrTiO₃, BaTiO₃) remain valid. All three models preserve symmetry on these structures. The benchmark dataset has 20 entries: 9 valid perovskite cases (all pass) and 11 retracted spinel cases (flagged for transparency). Next steps Rerun CHGNet and MACE-MP on the corrected Co₃O₄ structure to complete the picture Extend the benchmark with MOF structures contributed by Jack Evans (Adelaide) under CC-BY 4.0 Add input validation as a first-class concern in the benchmark protocol Invite community contributions of genuinely problematic structures (verified clean inputs) The benchmark dataset is openly available. If you have a structure where a universal MLIP produces an incorrect prediction on a verified clean input, we welcome the contribution.

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 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 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 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 a community-validated benchmark for MLIP behavior in real screening workflows. Important correction (July 27, 2026) Our initial headline finding — that Orb v3, CHGNet, and MACE-MP erase crystallographic symmetry during relaxation of Co₃O₄ spinel — was wrong. The input CIFs had a generation bug that placed 48 pairs of oxygen atoms ~0.32 Å apart. The models were correctly relaxing a broken structure. On a properly constructed Fd-3m spinel (corrected with pymatgen, single oxygen x=0.389, min O-O distance 2.54 Å), Orb v3 preserves Fd-3m perfectly. CHGNet and MACE-MP have not yet been rerun on the corrected structure. All 9 spinel cases have been retracted and flagged as in the benchmark dataset. The real lesson is about input validation, not MLIP limitations. We have added a preflight check to our relaxation routes that rejects CIFs with overlapping atoms before any MLIP runs. This kind of validation step is itself a benchmarking concern: if evaluation pipelines do not check for structural soundness, garbage-in artifacts will contaminate results. What remains valid The perovskite test cases (SrTiO₃, BaTiO₃) remain valid. All three models preserve symmetry on these structures. The benchmark dataset has 20 entries: 9 valid perovskite cases (all pass) and 11 retracted spinel cases (flagged for transparency). Next steps Rerun CHGNet and MACE-MP on the corrected Co₃O₄ structure to complete the picture Extend the benchmark with MOF structures contributed by Jack Evans (Adelaide) under CC-BY 4.0 Add input validation as a first-class concern in the benchmark protocol Invite community contributions of genuinely problematic structures (verified clean inputs) The benchmark dataset is openly available. If you have a structure where a universal MLIP produces an incorrect prediction on a verified clean input, we welcome the contribution.

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 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 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.