# Weatherhill Atlas — research directions

Release 0.3.7 · 2026-10-13 · research directions

Eight open questions. No ranking or authorization for physical work. Detailed conditions, alternatives and separate interest/evidence/readiness fields are in questions.json and /atlas/.

## Q-001 — Which measurable property could connect this interface to an external interface or instrument?

CASE-001 · open question · research lead

- CLM-001 (observation): Spectroscopy supports hybridization between substrate conduction states and Yb orbitals; this is a fundamental electronic result. [Source SRC-001](https://www.nature.com/articles/s43246-026-01332-5).
- CLM-002 (observation): The cited coherence temperature concerns the intralayer 2D state; it is not a measured universal cutoff for the interface. [Source SRC-001](https://www.nature.com/articles/s43246-026-01332-5).

**Missing:** No demonstrated coupling to water, ambient operation or sensing performance.

**Next:** Review the remaining supplement and identify a candidate observable, its operating envelope and a falsifying control.

**Criterion:** Continue only if a specific measurable coupling and an appropriate comparison can be articulated; otherwise retain as fundamental discovery.

## Q-002 — Which observations are needed before an installation or storage forecast?

CASE-002 · proposed transfer · awaiting site-specific observations

- CLM-003 (observation): Santa Rosa observations show poor collection at the tested locations. [Source SRC-002](https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/environmental-science/articles/10.3389/fenvs.2025.1537058/full).
- CLM-004 (model): The regional daily yield used in the planning example is modeled, not measured urban production. [Source SRC-002](https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/environmental-science/articles/10.3389/fenvs.2025.1537058/full).

**Missing:** Site-specific water delivered, downtime, seasonal availability and quality.

**Next:** Prepare a site-monitoring specification covering a full seasonal cycle, calibration, mesh area, missing data, meteorology and storage delivery.

**Criterion:** Advance to forecasting only when representative site observations and uncertainty support the stated service requirement; otherwise revise or reject the site.

## Q-003 — Which matched comparison separates face, preparation and nucleation regime?

CASE-003 · open question · ready for deeper review

- CLM-005 (model): The v4 model favors microcline (110) as an ice-nucleating template with initially cubic-rich clusters. [Source SRC-003](https://arxiv.org/html/2511.13402v4).
- CLM-006 (observation): Microcline (001) terrace nucleation occurs in cryogenic vapor deposition; sanidine shows a stronger step-edge preference. [Source SRC-004](https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-026-76548-7).
- CLM-007 (observation): Six feldspar powders show differing freezing spectra despite similar warm onset in concentrated suspensions. [Source SRC-005](https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/26/5635/2026/acp-26-5635-2026.html).

**Missing:** A comparison holding mineral identity and preparation fixed across relevant conditions.

**Next:** Build a source comparison sheet from supplements, then specify one matched face/preparation comparison with measured supersaturation and independent preparations.

**Criterion:** Prefer an explanation only if it predicts a discriminating contrast that remains after the principal confounders are controlled.

## Q-004 — What would separate an acoustic effect from natural clearing or instrument drift?

CASE-004 · open question · awaiting manuscript reconciliation

- CLM-008 (observation): The repository manuscript reports faster chamber optical recovery for selected acoustic frequencies. [Source SRC-006](https://eprints.gla.ac.uk/389759/2/389759.pdf).
- CLM-009 (observation): The authors report droplet-size responses that depend on frequency and sound level. [Source SRC-007](https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/environmental-science/articles/10.3389/fenvs.2022.972648/full).
- CLM-010 (observation): Field observations cannot fully separate acoustic response from naturally changing precipitation. [Source SRC-008](https://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/15/4/993).

**Missing:** Independent, randomized fresh preparations with measured acoustic field and direct endpoint.

**Next:** First reconcile Cameron’s version and time axes; then draft a randomized acoustic/sham measurement-qualification plan with fresh preparations, blinded analysis and a physical endpoint.

**Criterion:** Propose a test only after the optical instrument passes vibration/drift controls; advance a mechanism if a repeatable contrast survives sham and environmental controls.

## Q-005 — Does the feature improve water delivered to storage against a matched simpler structure?

CASE-005 · proposed transfer · awaiting full methods

- CLM-011 (observation): Publisher excerpts report improved laboratory collection from a spiral/fractal-inspired structure with surface modification. [Source SRC-009](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0021979724030029).

**Missing:** Complete methods, matched area/coating comparator and storage-delivery measurement.

**Next:** Obtain lawful full-text/supplement access and extract geometry, treatment, airflow, area normalization and collection endpoint before specifying a factorial comparison.

**Criterion:** Retain the feature only if a geometry effect can be distinguished from treatment and area conventions with a delivery endpoint; do not choose hardware from the abstract ratio.

## Q-006 — Does the null identify an operating limit or a measurement mismatch?

CASE-006 · open question · ready for deeper review

- CLM-012 (observation): Flat neat water showed no detectable evaporation enhancement under the tested visible illumination. [Source SRC-010](https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC13598155/).

**Missing:** Raw-data/supplement audit and comparison across interfaces with matched thermal and geometric boundaries.

**Next:** Retrieve the SI and public dataset, check fit uncertainty and independent preparations, then compare illumination, heat balance and measurement geometry across the disputed literature.

**Criterion:** Treat the finding as a useful bound if the detection limit and controls withstand review; a new experiment should resolve a stated discrepancy within measurable sensitivity.

## Q-007 — When does a charge response become a useful fog outcome?

CASE-007 · open question · source-backed; collection evidence still incomplete

- CLM-013 (observation): Negative charge injection increased the reported mass concentration in the 1.1 µm droplet bin by 95.3% during one natural-fog event. [Source SRC-011](https://centaur.reading.ac.uk/105035/9/PhysRevResearch.4.L022050.pdf).
- CLM-014 (observation): Charge release during the fog flight was followed by an approximately 2% maximum increase in reflected light. [Source SRC-012](https://centaur.reading.ac.uk/107287/8/Geophysical%20Research%20Letters%20-%202022%20-%20Harrison%20-%20Ionic%20Charge%20Emission%20Into%20Fog%20From%20a%20Remotely%20Piloted%20Aircraft.pdf).
- CLM-015 (model): The original Oman working paper reports positive rainfall attribution, with a 16.23% bootstrap mean in its headline analysis. [Source SRC-013](https://documents.uow.edu.au/content/groups/public/%40web/%40inf/%40math/documents/doc/uow270990.pdf).
- CLM-016 (model): The 2026 reanalysis estimates 6.68% attribution, compared with 12.52% from the earlier estimator applied within the same analysis. [Source SRC-014](https://arxiv.org/pdf/2607.21991v1).

**Missing:** The droplet and reflectivity responses do not establish collected water or improved visibility. The closest collection lead remains unread; rainfall attribution has a different scale and denominator.

**Next:** Read the Cruzat paper once an authorized copy is available. Audit the Harrison data and Oman model sensitivity, keeping optical, collected-water and rainfall endpoints separate.

**Criterion:** Choose a bounded next study only when the primary endpoint, comparator, independent unit and uncertainty can be measured without borrowing an effect size from a different endpoint.

## Q-008 — How much condensate can be collected from ambient air reliably?

CASE-008 · proposed transfer · ready for a bounded measurement proposal

- CLM-017 (observation): A photonic surface stayed 4.9 °C below ambient air temperature during the reported midday interval in direct sunlight. [Source SRC-016](https://web.stanford.edu/group/fan/publication/Raman_Nature_515_540_2014.pdf).
- CLM-018 (observation): A 24-hour rooftop chamber run averaged 19.3 g/m²/h of condensation, equivalent to about 0.46 L/m² over that run. [Source SRC-017](https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8221617/).
- CLM-019 (observation): A separate open-air test collected passively removed condensate through the night and into the following day. [Source SRC-017](https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8221617/).
- CLM-020 (model): At an assumed 90% relative humidity, the paper calculates 85% more potential dew than OPUR foil from measured cooling performance. [Source SRC-017](https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8221617/).

**Missing:** A chamber condensation rate and a modeled collector advantage do not establish sustained ambient-air collection across climates.

**Next:** Review the underlying data, then define a side-by-side ambient-air measurement of net collected mass, dew point, sky conditions and total footprint against a conventional collector.

**Criterion:** Advance only if a measured net-water advantage survives matched conditions, independent-day analysis and separate accounting for condenser area and occupied area.

## Reading and use

Use claims.json for current quantities, denominators, limitations and source locators. Access gaps and unresolved corrections remain open.

Public-record SHA-256: 05d5144501fd073e2f6aba3d4af90a0e2a82d3399a09b935edcc37b0d9f2e83f