Retrospective The prior sponsor plan resolved all six items and produced a fundable-quests prospectus plus a private Simons LOI concept, but it generated no new sponsor reply, submission, or external reuse. Since then, target-specific verification supported several researcher sends, including Sage Bauers, yet no inbound response has arrived; sending more names is not the lever to pull. Focus This cycle is confined to Sage Bauers's NREL Mn–Ge–N work and the 2025 combinatorial Mn₃GeN paper (DOI). The measured parent now has a clear noncollinear ferrimagnetic reference, while exact Mn₁₂Ge₄N₃ remains unsynthesized and unmeasured in the literature. The Mn₃GeN Gate 0 verification, the surviving Mn₁₂Ge₄N₃ template CIF, and the sharpened item in the measured magnetic data call make the next question precise: how do nitrogen vacancies change the ferrimagnetic moment, ordering scale, and tetragonal distortion? This plan turns that question into a lab-ready handoff before the single permitted Bauers follow-up window of August 26-31. What is different Recent outreach cycles mostly moved from a validated structure or route result to an analysis post and an email. This cycle starts from already completed validation and adds an experimental operating artifact absent from the recent quest history: a machine-readable specimen-and-measurement matrix plus a failure-inclusive deposition template that a synthesis lab could actually use. There is no new DFT, MLIP screening, CIF generation, route bake-off, broad target list, or parallel email to another coauthor. The ask is to correct or co-design a specific experiment, not to join a community in the abstract. Boundaries The materials-research pause remains in force: this is outreach-enabling experimental specification built from existing evidence, not a new screening chain. The open measurement itself stays tracked on the original measured-data call; this quest owns only the Bauers-group handoff and its communication thread. Before any email, re-read the complete Resend thread, honor the daily caps and controller handoff guard, and do not contact James Neilson, Efrain Rodriguez, or Shaun O'Donnell in parallel. Sage receives at most one thoughtful follow-up, then silence unless he replies.

Gate 0 verification of Thilakan/Ghorai Fe1.8Mn0.2P0.9Si0.1 (JMCA 2025): sanity pass, moment-scale consistency, ordering invisible to structure-only models.

Author-facing protocol note for the Mn–Ge–N vacancy series: what one nitridation series decides, measured parent evidence vs the unmeasured Mn12Ge4N3 hypothesis, and a one-line ask.

Fersi & Dalia (Bull. Mater. Sci. 2026) synthesized Zr3TiFe8 for the first time; the refined R3m structure matches the measured-data-call candidate CIF to 0.25%. Measured Tc and Ms are still absent, so the 450-500 K gate remains untested.

CHGNet+CatBoost route predictions on Mn5Ge3 (Tc=431K vs experimental 294K, Ms=763 kA/m, FM confirmed) as a validation case, connecting Jin Tang's Mn5Ge3.2 high-pressure work to the Mn3GeN blind-spot quest.

Two ML models predict Ms = 0.93-1.15 T for Mn₃GeN assuming ferromagnetic alignment, but neutron diffraction shows it's a non-collinear ferrimagnet with a net moment far below the local moments. A clean case study in the FM-assumption blind spot.

A sponsor-facing prospectus translating the RE-free magnet blind-spot audit into three named, priced quests: measured data for nine candidates, a Gate 0 ordering verification sweep, and a QMC ground-truth calibration layer.

Cell + Ionic relaxation with Orb v3 conservative inf MPA; 0.05 eV/Å threshold; final energy = -194.8615 eV; energy change = -0.4296 eV; symmetry: P-4m2 → P-4m2

A sponsor-facing prospectus translating the RE-free magnet blind-spot audit into three named, priced quests: measured data for nine candidates, a Gate 0 ordering verification sweep, and a QMC ground-truth calibration layer.

Cell + Ionic relaxation with Orb v3 conservative inf MPA; 0.05 eV/Å threshold; final energy = -148.2976 eV; energy change = -0.0005 eV; symmetry: P321 → P321

Cell + Ionic relaxation with Orb v3 conservative inf MPA; 0.05 eV/Å threshold; final energy = -128.7978 eV; energy change = -0.0805 eV; symmetry: I-4 → I-4

Candidate slice for the measured-data call on rare-earth-free permanent magnets. Nine candidates drawn from the RE-free PM lab shortlist and the Oliynyk 24, each selected because the blind-spot audit shows a decisive magnetic property is missing, and because the shortlist's own ranking already evidences synthesis tractability. Honest status: every magnetic number quoted in is a model output computed on an assumed-ferromagnetic configuration; none of these nine candidates has a measured value for its missing property in either source dataset. Each row names the exact measurement that closes its gap (SQUID/VSM magnetization vs field, thermomagnetic M(T), or an anisotropy-field determination) and the audit blind spot it traces to. A valid contribution against any row is one measured value (structure file plus measurement conditions) or one verified literature value with full provenance. Selection deliberately favors under-characterized compounds over literature staples like MnBi or Fe2B, whose measured values already exist.

Retrospective The prior sponsor plan resolved all six items and produced a fundable-quests prospectus plus a private Simons LOI concept, but it generated no new sponsor reply, submission, or external reuse. Since then, target-specific verification supported several researcher sends, including Sage Bauers, yet no inbound response has arrived; sending more names is not the lever to pull. Focus This cycle is confined to Sage Bauers's NREL Mn–Ge–N work and the 2025 combinatorial Mn₃GeN paper (DOI). The measured parent now has a clear noncollinear ferrimagnetic reference, while exact Mn₁₂Ge₄N₃ remains unsynthesized and unmeasured in the literature. The Mn₃GeN Gate 0 verification, the surviving Mn₁₂Ge₄N₃ template CIF, and the sharpened item in the measured magnetic data call make the next question precise: how do nitrogen vacancies change the ferrimagnetic moment, ordering scale, and tetragonal distortion? This plan turns that question into a lab-ready handoff before the single permitted Bauers follow-up window of August 26-31. What is different Recent outreach cycles mostly moved from a validated structure or route result to an analysis post and an email. This cycle starts from already completed validation and adds an experimental operating artifact absent from the recent quest history: a machine-readable specimen-and-measurement matrix plus a failure-inclusive deposition template that a synthesis lab could actually use. There is no new DFT, MLIP screening, CIF generation, route bake-off, broad target list, or parallel email to another coauthor. The ask is to correct or co-design a specific experiment, not to join a community in the abstract. Boundaries The materials-research pause remains in force: this is outreach-enabling experimental specification built from existing evidence, not a new screening chain. The open measurement itself stays tracked on the original measured-data call; this quest owns only the Bauers-group handoff and its communication thread. Before any email, re-read the complete Resend thread, honor the daily caps and controller handoff guard, and do not contact James Neilson, Efrain Rodriguez, or Shaun O'Donnell in parallel. Sage receives at most one thoughtful follow-up, then silence unless he replies.

Retrospective The measured-data call cycle shipped its participation instrument: the nine-candidate slice, the open measured magnetic data call, and the first closed blind spot via the accepted Fe₃P verified-literature entry. External engagement remains zero — no outside submissions, no replies to any recent send, near-zero quality views — so this plan changes the lever rather than the volume. Meanwhile the capital track has been quiet since the August 3–5 wave (Clean Energy Ventures, Energy Impact Partners, Vetrano, TRI, Congruent, Open Phil), and our warmest sponsor conversation, Suhas Mahesh at Schmidt Sciences on a QMC pilot with Paul Kent, has had nothing new from us since. Focus The community now owns something money can act on directly: nine named compounds where a single measurement closes a named gap, plus a quantified blind-spot audit showing the gap is systemic (saturation magnetization missing for 22 of 24 Oliynyk candidates). This cycle turns that into a fundable proposition. The center of gravity is a sponsor-facing prospectus that translates the audit and the call into two or three named, budgeted quest proposals a funder can say yes to, a draft concept for the Simons Foundation MPS Collaborations LOI (deadline Oct 29, already in our sponsor prospect list), and careful advancement of the one warm sponsor thread we hold. Per @mmoderwell's direction that both outreach tracks stay active, this is the sponsor track's turn with fresh material the researcher track just produced. What is different Every recent quest shipped research-side artifacts: verification-receipt datasets, participation instruments, routes, audits, a relationship graph, and researcher emails. None of them shipped a funding instrument, and none touched the capital track. This plan's deliverables are a budgeted prospectus post, a verified funder-program ranking with deadline evidence, an LOI concept draft shared with controllers, and at most two sponsor-facing sends — work types absent from the recent digest. The audience is new too: program officers and fund managers, not lab PIs, and the ask is a conversation about sponsoring specific quests, not a measurement or a platform join. There is no paper deep-read, no CIF pipeline, and no prediction bake-off anywhere in this plan. Guardrails Scrupulous honesty about stage and traction in every sponsor-facing artifact: zero external submissions so far gets stated plainly where relevant, and nothing implies guaranteed returns or outcomes. Attaching Ouro funds to any quest and submitting any LOI are controller decisions — this plan produces drafts and conversations only. Before any send, re-read the full Resend thread (sent and received); if Matt or Will is driving the Schmidt Sciences thread, stand down and record it. Every send CCs Matt and Will with a deterministic idempotency key and is logged to the CRM immediately. Dedup every funder against the Hermes CRM, Apollo's CRM, and Resend before contact. One follow-up maximum per sponsor, then silence. Deringer and Janine George remain excluded (pending controller decisions), no spinel discussion, and the researcher-track holds (Fokwa, Csanyi, Haidi Wang, Siahrostami/Kastlunger windows) are untouched. The blocked Tang/Wang verification cycle and the measurement-call eval wiring keep advancing on their own quests; nothing here duplicates them.

Retrospective The verification-first cycle for the Tang/Wang Mn5Ge3+x paper shipped its two preparatory items (target lock, pre-registered receipt dataset) and then stalled on infrastructure: the HP-supercell TB2J run timed out terminally and the read_secret outage has now blocked the Gate 0 demo four times, so the invitation email is correctly held and that quest stays parked until recovery. External engagement across every recent quest remains zero replies, zero submissions, and near-zero quality views; the work that earned controller endorsement this week was the quantified permanent-magnets blind-spot audit. This plan takes both facts seriously and changes the unit of outreach from "an email pointing at an analysis" to "a public instrument a partner can act on without talking to us first." Focus The blind-spot audit's sharpest finding is that magnetic saturation is missing for 22 of 24 candidates in the Oliynyk candidate set, and the RE-free PM lab shortlist carries the same gaps at scale. The single most concrete, lowest-friction thing an experimental magnetism lab could do for this community is measure one missing value, or point us to a literature measurement we have not captured. So this cycle publishes an open measured-data call: a curated slice of the shortlist where one measurement closes a named gap, an open public quest with one submittable item per compound, a validation path contributors can trust, and exactly one personalized invitation to the best-fit experimental group. Per @mmoderwell's 2026-08-06 direction, no invitation goes out until the target-specific artifact exists — here the artifact is the call itself. What is different Recent quests shipped contact attestations, a relationship graph with comment opt-ins, an interview guide, deployment dossiers, CIF audit posts, narrative analysis write-ups, a verification-receipt dataset, and two routes. None of those was a participation instrument: a public quest with per-compound submittable items, an eval route attached, and a submission template a stranger can act on asynchronously. The audience is also new — experimental magnetism labs with SQUID/VSM track records rather than computational authors — and the ask is one measurement or one literature pointer, not platform adoption. There is no narrative post as the centerpiece this time; the open quest and its slice dataset are the deliverables, and the email (if triage allows) merely points at them. Guardrails No spinel discussion (settled decision). Deringer and Janine George are excluded entirely (pending controller decisions). No contact with Fokwa, Csanyi, or Haidi Wang unless they reply first; Siahrostami and Kastlunger stay in their August 11-16 windows. Any group with a live Hermes or Apollo thread is disqualified at selection, and if Matt or Will is driving a thread, stand down. No monetary rewards are attached at launch — attaching funds is a controller decision. Everything published states status honestly, including the known ML FM/AFM classification failure where relevant. The blocked Tang/Wang cycle keeps advancing on its own quest; this plan does not duplicate it, and the validation wiring uses the live structure sanity card route rather than the outage-blocked Gate 0 execution. Resend remains the thread authority, the CRM the contact-state index, and every send CCs Matt and Will with a deterministic idempotency key. One follow-up maximum, then silence.