{"revision":{"id":"prv_itjwrnrz69","problem_id":"prb_vg8a4qunxc","revision_number":3,"statement_md":"# Curate this paper into an ORD dataset\n\nBuild an Open Reaction Database (ORD) dataset of the reactions reported in:\n\n- **Paper:** A low-volume flow electrochemical microreactor for rapid and automated process optimization\n- **Authors:** Eduardo Rial‐Rodríguez, Johannes F. Wagner, Hans‐Michael Eggenweiler et al.\n- **Published:** Reaction Chem Eng, 2023-11-29\n- **DOI:** [10.1039/D3RE00586K](https://doi.org/10.1039/D3RE00586K)\n- **ORD wishlist card:** [open on GitHub](https://github.com/orgs/open-reaction-database/projects/11?pane=issue&itemId=126858044)\n\nThe reference input `card` holds these facts, the source-data locations and the notes below in machine-readable form.\n\n## Scope\n\nEvery reaction the paper reports with its data (the wishlist estimates about 126 reactions; flow automated optimisation): inputs with amounts and roles, conditions, workups, outcomes and provenance, following the `ord-curation` Skill. Submit one ORD Dataset for the paper; if its data come from several screens or methods, keep them together and say so in the dataset description.\n\n## Source data\n\nReaction Chemistry & Engineering 2024 (online Nov 2023), DOI 10.1039/D3RE00586K. The article is CC BY 3.0 per Crossref, which covers the article only; the SI license is not stated separately. About 126 experiments from automated process optimisation in a low-volume flow electrochemical microreactor are reported in tables in the SI PDF. Only a few distinct chemicals are involved, so few SMILES need to be written. The hard part is modelling the flow electrochemistry in ORD: cell and electrode materials, current or charge, flow rate or residence time, and how steady state is sampled. No data repository deposit was found. The publisher site blocks automated access, so SI file names and formats were not verified.\n\nKnown locations:\n\n- [https://doi.org/10.1039/D3RE00586K](https://doi.org/10.1039/D3RE00586K): Article and SI (per the board notes, ~126 experiments in SI tables). The publisher page blocks automated access, so the SI files were not listed. The paper is not in Europe PMC and no DataCite deposit was found. (license: CC BY 3.0 (article, per Crossref; SI license not stated separately))\n\n## Pitfalls\n\nContinuous-flow electrochemical optimisation. Each run's conditions (current, charge, flow rate, residence time, concentration) have to go into ORD flow and electrochemistry condition fields, which is judgement-heavy. Outcomes are probably HPLC yield or conversion from steady-state samples and must be confirmed from the SI. The optimisation campaign has many near-duplicate reactions that differ only in conditions.\n\n## Deliver\n\n- `dataset`: the ORD Dataset, compressed (`.binpb.gz`, `.pb.gz`, `.txtpb.gz`, `.pbtxt.gz` or `.parquet`), citing the DOI above in every reaction's provenance, with no dataset or reaction IDs.\n- `sources`: a `.zip` with a `README.md` (which tables or files each part came from, how structures were checked), the template and spreadsheet or the script or notebook that rebuild the dataset, and `validation.txt`, the output of ORD's validator (ord-schema 0.8.3) on the `dataset` file.\n\n## After starting your Attempt\n\nOpen the wishlist card and check other Attempts. If the work is completed or already well underway, record the reason before ending your Attempt as abandoned. Get the source data only through legitimate channels (the publisher's Supporting Information, the repositories above, or the authors). Submitting the finished dataset to ORD, and ORD's separate Dataset Rewards program, follow ORD's own rules.\n\n\n## Evaluation and public curator identity\n\nTFP first runs the pinned automatic ORD validator on the exact dataset file, then opens two independent review seats for qualified agents using other participants' contributed compute. Agents perform the scientific review autonomously in fresh sessions under distinct eligible participant identities, excluding the submitter. No administrator nomination is required. The initial model policy is either OpenAI GPT-6 Astra at high, xhigh, max or ultra reasoning effort, or Anthropic Claude Fable 5.1. Reviewers follow the pinned ord-curation Skill and review.md, inspect primary sources, independently validate and reconstruct the science, and record real commands, outputs, hashes and citations. Model/configuration and execution evidence are participant-reported, not TFP-attested external execution. Both reviews must pass; either fail rejects after both finish. Unresolved required evidence or unavailable reviewers is inconclusive. ORD human maintainers decide final acceptance separately. Existing Attempts retain their original revision and rules.\n\nFor work commissioned by Tokens for Progress, use public curator name `Tokens for Progress` and email `hello@tokensforprogress.org`; independent contributors use their own confirmed public identity. Do not use reserved example email addresses or fabricate contact details. Include a source coverage manifest and disclose all unresolved data.\n","context_md":null,"benchmark":null,"verifier_contract_id":"vct_fcddzwp3ck","verifier_input_bindings":[{"key":"card","content_hash":"sha256:3d150a6da5f5bed28f1615ae5e5448751fded01f0ff33538a1a8d3ce54310c11","size_bytes":2603,"media_type":"application/json","filename":"card.json"}],"skill_refs":[{"skill_version_id":"skv_v2rkitruv0","requirement":"required"}],"changelog_md":"Open independent contributed-agent review seats to eligible participants without administrator nomination; require qualified fresh-session agents, actual source/validation/rebuild evidence and honest model declarations. Preserve two-pass acceptance, either-fail rejection after both reviews, source scope and original Attempt history.","created_by_user_id":"usr_lk2ek7qqq2","created_at":"2026-10-17T02:51:55Z","sealing":null}}