Future research / proposed questions
From a supply map
to a delivery question.
Connect the places that can make magnets with the applications that can accept them. Then ask what equipment, time and investment would make that connection resilient.
Loading research scope…
01 / Two maps, one research boundary
Conceptual workflow · no asserted shipmentsSupply & capability
Resources, separation, purchased metals and alloys, magnet manufacturing. Keep operating status, geography and missing links visible.
Open the documented supply map ↗Product specification
Qualification
Evidence gaps
U.S. applications
Named product and plant records. Establish the actual motor or generator architecture before estimating magnet demand.
Open the U.S. application map ↗A pair of map pins is not a supply contract. Facility capability, material flows, equipment purchases and finished-product transport require separate evidence.
02 / Three connected questions
Proposed research · not new results03 / Compare outcomes, test assumptions
Scenario sensitivity & Pareto analysisCost is one axis.
Usable delivery is another.
Compare feasible candidate portfolios under the same budget and deadline. Vary demand, substitution, yields, construction, qualification and finite inventories. Keep alternatives that cannot improve one outcome without worsening another.
Start with the existing scenario laboratory ↗Candidate portfolios / proposed comparison
Lifecycle cost
Capital, operation, qualification, carrying cost and transport—with their data gaps.
Unmet or late qualified demand
Accepted magnet tonnes by deadline and quantity × time waiting.
This is a proposed analysis, not a measured frontier. The current model compares a bounded set of policies in scenario credits; it is neither a nationwide optimizer nor a dollar-calibrated capital model.
04 / Evidence needed to make it concrete
Source packages retain their status