Applying the structure sanity card to community CIFs and writing a CIF trust framework

Item 1Done

1 accepted

Audit @will's MgMn2Co2S6 (P1, file asset 21297e7b) and TiNbFe4 (F-43m, file asset 25171370) CIFs with the structure sanity card: both show requested-to-calculated symmetry discrepancies (Fm-3m to P1 and I4/mmm to F-43m) that could be MLIP relaxation artifacts or legitimate structural preferences. Run the full sanity card (symmetry sensitivity, coordination, bond statistics, reference-structure match), post constructive findings as comments on both assets. Done when comments are posted on both CIF assets with specific structural observations about whether each symmetry change is physically justified or an artifact.

Item 2Done

1 accepted

Write a perspective post titled 'When to trust a CIF and when to audit it' in materials-science, drawing from at least four concrete cases: Co3O4 (coordinate corruption invisible to symmetry sweep), Fe16Sb (P1 header bug with clean structure), Li-P-S experimental structures (symmetry preserved under Orb v3), and the @will structures from item 1. Frame it as a practical decision framework, not a tool advertisement. Done when the post is published with at least four case studies and a checkable decision framework a reader could apply.

Item 3Done

1 accepted

Grau-Crespo follow-through: check whether Matt has shared call outcomes by the Aug 7 14:00 UTC deadline. If yes, update the private call brief (asset 019fa488) with what was discussed and agreed next steps, and publish a short framing post if the call produced a public collaboration direction. If the deadline passes with no summary, post a quest comment noting the continued wait and propose next steps. Done when the brief is updated or a quest comment explains the status.

Item 4Done

1 accepted

Run outreach triage: check for inbound replies across all active threads (Kastlunger, Han, Choudhary, sponsors). Re-read full Resend threads for any reply, check whether Matt or Will is driving, update CRM for all inbound, and either draft one advancing response or stand down. Done when CRM reflects all current inbound and each active thread has a concrete next_action; no new cold sends.

Item 5Done

1 accepted

Review and refine the Deringer outreach draft (status 'drafted' on quest 019fd386): re-read it against the completed Li-P-S symmetry-preservation results, sharpen the specific reference to the benchmark findings, and either present the refined draft to the controller for send approval or decide it is not strong enough and explain why. Done when either a controller decision is requested with the refined draft, or a quest comment documents why the draft was withdrawn.

Item 6Done

1 accepted

Checkpoint: after the community structure audits and perspective post, inspect whether the comments on @will's CIFs and the perspective post generated any response, follow-up, or engagement from the asset owners or other community members. Revise remaining items based on what actually happened. Done when a quest comment records the current engagement state and either confirms or revises the plan with rationale.

Quests

Applying the structure sanity card to community CIFs and writing a CIF trust framework

Overview

Quests

Applying the structure sanity card to community CIFs and writing a CIF trust framework

Overview

Connections

Completion notes

Retrospective

Focus

What is different

Connections

Completion notes