{"schemaVersion":"1.0","revision":"fa961ab24277a91737c3","article":{"id":"scwiki-e10","topicId":"scwiki-topic-e10","code":"E10","slug":"pressure-quenching","title":"Pressure quenching: retained states and evidence thresholds","summary":"Evaluate decompressed metastable states using sample-specific transport, magnetization, preparation paths and storage histories.","aliases":["pressure quench","PQP","pressure quenching","metastability","Hg1223","Hg-1223"],"evidenceTypes":["experiment","theory"],"relatedCodes":["E1","E2","E4","D3","D5","D6"],"editorialStatus":"scoped-check","contentState":"pilot","modifiedAt":"2026-10-20","review":{"checkedAt":"2026-10-20","scope":"Selected final Hg1223 text and author figures; cgs disk estimate and illustrative kinetic integration; historical publisher abstracts and selected Kramers original. Follow-up of author-v1 preparation records and interrupted thermal history; original numerical observations retained. No new material-specific lifetime fit.","limitations":["Complete scientific acceptance, raw-data and final supplementary comparison remain open.","Independent replication has not been verified in this review.","Gao and Schilling are publisher-abstract checks, not full primary methods audits.","No material-specific retention barrier, lifetime or universal pressure-quench mechanism is calculated.","Figure2F gives26.0GPa for S1experiment1, whereas the introduction says26.3GPa; values are not silently reconciled or interpreted as an uncertainty range."]},"provenance":{"repository":"JackZH26/jzis-superconductivity","commit":"0a7c9d6696804ec26aa12f8eed68b55c9b3c0fcf","path":"E_tuning_parameters/E10_pressure_quenching.md","sha256":"9012460f69dd462da21bd90202c820c8c26289398853363b7a09ba7f2f67260b","sourceId":"file-9d3d58e8e6e047b4"},"references":[{"id":"source-6d09a24a26a15997","doi":"10.1103/PhysRevB.50.4260","title":"Superconductivity up to 164 K in HgBa2Cam−1CumO2m+2+δ (m=1, 2, and 3) under quasihydrostatic pressures","year":1994,"url":"https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevB.50.4260","publicationStatus":"journal-article","verification":{"scope":"publisher-abstract","checkedAt":"2026-10-18","evidenceUrl":"https://journals.aps.org/prb/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevB.50.4260","note":"Resistive maximum164K under pressure; exact31GPa point and transition criterion not checked in full original."}},{"id":"source-d95477ebe515f481","doi":"10.1038/363056a0","title":"Superconductivity above 130 K in the Hg–Ba–Ca–Cu–O system","year":1993,"url":"https://doi.org/10.1038/363056a0","publicationStatus":"journal-article","verification":{"scope":"publisher-abstract-and-bibliography","checkedAt":"2026-10-18","evidenceUrl":"https://www.nature.com/articles/363056a0","note":"Published6May1993,Nature363,56–58. Original abstract magnetic/resistive context only; full methods not reviewed."}},{"id":"source-14d1e9e0097f7ffb","doi":"10.1073/pnas.2536178123","title":"Ambient-pressure 151-K superconductivity in HgBa2Ca2Cu3O8+δ via pressure quench","year":2026,"url":"https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2536178123","publicationStatus":"journal-article","verification":{"scope":"selected-author-v1-protocol-and-figure-followup","checkedAt":"2026-10-20","evidenceUrl":"https://arxiv.org/pdf/2603.12437v1","note":"Prior selected final PMC text comparison retained. This follow-up visually checks author Fig2(p15),S2(p21),S5(p24),S6(p25) and rereads methods/stability text. Preparation pressure differs from measurement pressure; source gives no quantitative cold-release rate in checked methods. S1first pressure discrepancy26.0vs26.3GPa explicitly retained. Final SI could not be newly accessed; equivalence and rawdata review remain open."}},{"id":"source-26d03be9d47579df","doi":"10.1016/S0031-8914(40)90098-2","title":"Brownian motion in a field of force and the diffusion model of chemical reactions","year":1940,"url":"https://doi.org/10.1016/S0031-8914(40)90098-2","publicationStatus":"journal-article","verification":{"scope":"selected-original-classical-escape-analysis","checkedAt":"2026-10-18","evidenceUrl":"https://www.mit.edu/~kardar/research/seminars/translocation/Kramers1940.pdf","note":"Original introduction and selected sections5–6 pp291–293,299–301 read as extracted text. Large-barrier classical escape and damping limits; no material-specific application validated."}}],"claims":[{"id":"scwiki-e10-claim-scope-1","sectionId":"scope","statement":"Pressure quenching is a preparation path: establish a state under pressure, cool while maintaining load, release pressure at a chosen temperature, then measure the recovered specimen. Quench pressure and measurement pressure are different fields. A retained state may be metastable, and its properties depend on unloading, defects and subsequent temperature excursions. This topic concerns decompressed specimens; superconductivity measured under load belongs to pressure tuning.","evidenceType":"experiment","sourceIds":["source-14d1e9e0097f7ffb"],"conditions":"Bind specimen, preparation pressure/temperature, ambient observation, operational onset/magnetic criterion and warming/storage history.","verificationScope":"Selected author-v1 Fig2/S2/S5/S6 and protocol text revisited; final SI comparison and independent scientific acceptance remain open.","sourceRelationship":"context-for-editorial-analysis","derivationNote":"Editorial distinction between preparation, observation, sample identity and the limits of inference; not a single-source experimental conclusion."},{"id":"scwiki-e10-claim-scope-2","sectionId":"scope","statement":"Schilling's 1993 discovery paper reports magnetic and resistive evidence around 133 K in Hg-based cuprates. Gao's 1994 study reports resistive superconductivity up to 164 K under quasihydrostatic pressure. Those publisher abstracts establish historical context here, not a verified pressure-specific zero-resistance criterion. They do not establish that the high-pressure state survives unloading.","evidenceType":"experiment","sourceIds":["source-6d09a24a26a15997","source-d95477ebe515f481"],"conditions":"Bind specimen, preparation pressure/temperature, ambient observation, operational onset/magnetic criterion and warming/storage history.","verificationScope":"Selected author-v1 Fig2/S2/S5/S6 and protocol text revisited; final SI comparison and independent scientific acceptance remain open.","sourceRelationship":"context-for-editorial-analysis","derivationNote":"Editorial distinction between preparation, observation, sample identity and the limits of inference; not a single-source experimental conclusion."},{"id":"scwiki-e10-claim-mathematical-assumptions-1","sectionId":"mathematical-assumptions","statement":"An illustrative kinetic model assigns a retained fraction $x$ a one-way escape rate $\\Gamma$: $\\dot x=-\\Gamma x$, hence $x(t)=x(0)\\exp[-\\int_0^t\\Gamma(P(t'),T(t'))dt']$. A thermally activated approximation is $\\Gamma=\\Gamma_0\\exp[-\\Delta G^\\ddagger/(k_BT)]$. The prefactor has units of inverse time; the integral is dimensionless. This assumes a single effective barrier and negligible repopulation. Kramers' classical escape analysis also makes the prefactor depend on damping; it does not justify ignoring tunneling, barrier distributions or transformations involving nucleation and growth. No Hg-1223 barrier or lifetime is extracted here.","evidenceType":"theory","sourceIds":["source-26d03be9d47579df"],"conditions":"Bind specimen, preparation pressure/temperature, ambient observation, operational onset/magnetic criterion and warming/storage history.","verificationScope":"Selected author-v1 Fig2/S2/S5/S6 and protocol text revisited; final SI comparison and independent scientific acceptance remain open.","sourceRelationship":"context-for-local-derivation","derivationNote":"Illustrative escape model or reported disk-estimate arithmetic; neither yields a fitted retention barrier, measured lifetime or independent magnetic volume."},{"id":"scwiki-e10-claim-mathematical-assumptions-2","sectionId":"mathematical-assumptions","statement":"For the retrieved Hg-1223 specimen, the authors estimate a shielding fraction using a thin-disk geometry: $f\\simeq\\pi|M|/(Hr^3)$ with their cgs moment/field convention. Taking $|M|/H=1.9\\times10^{-8}$ emu/Oe and effective radius $r=42.5$ micrometres gives $f\\approx0.778$. This reproduces the reported arithmetic, not an independent volume measurement. Because $f\\propto r^{-3}$, a hypothetical radius change of ±5% gives roughly 67–91%; that sensitivity interval is not a reported confidence interval. Thickness cancels only within the stated disk approximation. Background subtraction, irregular shape, penetration and flux pinning still matter.","evidenceType":"theory","sourceIds":["source-14d1e9e0097f7ffb"],"conditions":"Bind specimen, preparation pressure/temperature, ambient observation, operational onset/magnetic criterion and warming/storage history.","verificationScope":"Selected author-v1 Fig2/S2/S5/S6 and protocol text revisited; final SI comparison and independent scientific acceptance remain open.","sourceRelationship":"context-for-local-derivation","derivationNote":"Illustrative escape model or reported disk-estimate arithmetic; neither yields a fitted retention barrier, measured lifetime or independent magnetic volume."},{"id":"scwiki-e10-claim-experimental-criteria-1","sectionId":"experimental-criteria","statement":"Deng and colleagues' 2026 paper defines its quoted transition temperatures as resistive onsets using the temperature derivative. Author Figure 2 compares five quench experiments: S1 at 26.0 GPa/77 K retained 139 K; S1 at 28.4 GPa/4.2 K retained 147 K; S2 at 10.1 GPa/4.2 K retained 147 K; S3 at 10.9 GPa/4.2 K retained 149 K on warming and 148 K on cooling; S4 at 18.9 GPa/4.2 K retained 151 K on warming and 150 K on cooling. These are ambient-pressure measurements after quenching, with broad transitions. The highest onset is not a measured 151 K zero-resistance threshold. Multiple runs from this group are not independent laboratory replication.","evidenceType":"experiment","sourceIds":["source-14d1e9e0097f7ffb"],"conditions":"Bind specimen, preparation pressure/temperature, ambient observation, operational onset/magnetic criterion and warming/storage history.","verificationScope":"Selected author-v1 Fig2/S2/S5/S6 and protocol text revisited; final SI comparison and independent scientific acceptance remain open.","sourceRelationship":"direct-support","derivationNote":"Source-specific preparation and measurement conditions; no transfer of one specimen's magnetic or retention evidence to another."},{"id":"scwiki-e10-claim-experimental-criteria-2","sectionId":"experimental-criteria","statement":"Magnetization was measured on retrieved S2 after its 10.1 GPa/4.2 K preparation and subsequent handling. Its magnetic transition was near 140 K in a 10 Oe field; the approximately 78% estimate applies at 70 K. It must not be transferred to S4 at 151 K. Author Figure S6 multiplies the post-quench curve by ten for display; its specimen photograph is approximately 104 by 66 micrometres. Comparing plotted amplitudes without the scale correction would give a misleading fraction.","evidenceType":"experiment","sourceIds":["source-14d1e9e0097f7ffb"],"conditions":"Bind specimen, preparation pressure/temperature, ambient observation, operational onset/magnetic criterion and warming/storage history.","verificationScope":"Selected author-v1 Fig2/S2/S5/S6 and protocol text revisited; final SI comparison and independent scientific acceptance remain open.","sourceRelationship":"direct-support","derivationNote":"Source-specific preparation and measurement conditions; no transfer of one specimen's magnetic or retention evidence to another."},{"id":"scwiki-e10-claim-experimental-criteria-3","sectionId":"experimental-criteria","statement":"The stability experiment used S3, initially near 149 K: storage at 77 K was interrupted by transport measurements after 9 hours and 1, 2 and 3 days, with warming to 160 or 170 K. The reported slight decrease therefore belongs to this combined storage-and-cycling path, not a calibrated isothermal decay curve. A change in onset temperature is not itself a measured transformed volume fraction. A separate S2 cycle to 293 K lowered its onset from about 147 K to 143 K. Cold-storage survival does not establish a room-temperature shelf life for the 151 K specimen. In S5 after a 29.7 GPa/4.2 K quench, a broad warming anomaly extended to about 172 K, disappeared on subsequent cooling after a 180–193 K excursion, and was not reproduced. This entry records 172 K as an unassigned anomaly, with no searchable superconducting transition temperature.","evidenceType":"experiment","sourceIds":["source-14d1e9e0097f7ffb"],"conditions":"Bind specimen, preparation pressure/temperature, ambient observation, operational onset/magnetic criterion and warming/storage history.","verificationScope":"Selected author-v1 Fig2/S2/S5/S6 and protocol text revisited; final SI comparison and independent scientific acceptance remain open.","sourceRelationship":"mixed-source-and-local-derivation","derivationNote":"Selected author-v1 methods and figures. Source observations are separated from the editorial inference that cycling and onset shifts cannot identify a single isothermal decay or transformed fraction."},{"id":"scwiki-e10-claim-experimental-criteria-4","sectionId":"experimental-criteria","statement":"The transport methods use van der Pauw contacts, a solid cubic-boron-nitride pressure medium and room-temperature ruby-fluorescence/diamond-Raman pressure calibration. Screws were released while cold. These details should accompany the preparation path; a generic label such as hydrostatic pressure is insufficient for the actual stress environment. The checked methods describe cold screw release without a quantitative release-rate value. The new preparation records therefore retain an unknown rate, separately from the ambient measurement pressure. For S1 experiment 1, Figure 2F reports 26.0 GPa while the introduction says 26.3 GPa; the record follows the figure and flags the unresolved difference rather than treating it as a measured uncertainty interval.","evidenceType":"experiment","sourceIds":["source-14d1e9e0097f7ffb"],"conditions":"Bind specimen, preparation pressure/temperature, ambient observation, operational onset/magnetic criterion and warming/storage history.","verificationScope":"Selected author-v1 Fig2/S2/S5/S6 and protocol text revisited; final SI comparison and independent scientific acceptance remain open.","sourceRelationship":"direct-support","derivationNote":"Source-specific preparation and measurement conditions; no transfer of one specimen's magnetic or retention evidence to another."},{"id":"scwiki-e10-claim-limits-and-disputes-1","sectionId":"limits-and-disputes","statement":"The reported tetragonal structure persists in diffraction measurements up to 15 GPa, while recovered peaks broaden and lattice parameters change slightly. Those observations do not establish identical microscopic states before and after quenching. Calculated phonon stability in the tested model and a possible electronic Lifshitz feature are candidate explanations, not a measurement of the pairing cause or proof of global thermodynamic stability. No independent replication has been verified in this review; that is a review limitation, not proof that none exists.","evidenceType":"experiment","sourceIds":["source-14d1e9e0097f7ffb"],"conditions":"Bind specimen, preparation pressure/temperature, ambient observation, operational onset/magnetic criterion and warming/storage history.","verificationScope":"Selected author-v1 Fig2/S2/S5/S6 and protocol text revisited; final SI comparison and independent scientific acceptance remain open.","sourceRelationship":"context-for-editorial-analysis","derivationNote":"Editorial distinction between preparation, observation, sample identity and the limits of inference; not a single-source experimental conclusion."},{"id":"scwiki-e10-claim-limits-and-disputes-2","sectionId":"limits-and-disputes","statement":"The journal article was published online on 9 March 2026; the checked author manuscript is arXiv v1 dated 12 March. Selected final PMC text was compared with author transport/magnetization methods and Figures 2, S2, S5 and S6. The final supplementary file could not be newly accessed during this follow-up; the author version is retained without claiming equivalence. Final supplementary-file comparison, raw-data reanalysis and complete scientific acceptance remain open. The inherited bibliography names X. Deng; the published first author is Liangzi Deng. Gao and Schilling remain abstract-level checks here. Kramers supplies a simplified classical model, not a validated mechanism for this material.","evidenceType":"experiment","sourceIds":["source-6d09a24a26a15997","source-d95477ebe515f481","source-14d1e9e0097f7ffb","source-26d03be9d47579df"],"conditions":"Bind specimen, preparation pressure/temperature, ambient observation, operational onset/magnetic criterion and warming/storage history.","verificationScope":"Selected author-v1 Fig2/S2/S5/S6 and protocol text revisited; final SI comparison and independent scientific acceptance remain open.","sourceRelationship":"context-for-editorial-analysis","derivationNote":"Editorial distinction between preparation, observation, sample identity and the limits of inference; not a single-source experimental conclusion."},{"id":"scwiki-e10-claim-discovery-implications-1","sectionId":"discovery-implications","statement":"A useful follow-up tracks the same specimen before loading, under load and after release, combining transport, magnetism, composition and structure. Publish the complete pressure–temperature–time path, repeat cycles and failure cases, and measure retention versus temperature and time. Search records should distinguish preparation pressure from observation pressure and retain onset, zero-resistance, magnetic and unassigned-anomaly criteria separately. Applying this strategy to a different material is a proposal requiring new evidence; success in Hg-1223 does not guarantee a retained hydride or nickelate phase.","evidenceType":"theory","sourceIds":["source-14d1e9e0097f7ffb","source-26d03be9d47579df"],"conditions":"Bind specimen, preparation pressure/temperature, ambient observation, operational onset/magnetic criterion and warming/storage history.","verificationScope":"Selected author-v1 Fig2/S2/S5/S6 and protocol text revisited; final SI comparison and independent scientific acceptance remain open.","sourceRelationship":"context-for-editorial-analysis","derivationNote":"Editorial distinction between preparation, observation, sample identity and the limits of inference; not a single-source experimental conclusion."}],"corrections":[{"id":"scwiki-e10-correction-1","description":"The inherited bibliography attributes the2026 paper to X.Deng; the published first author is Liangzi Deng. Original pinned bytes retained.","sourceId":"source-14d1e9e0097f7ffb","scope":"Published author identity.","targetSectionId":"limits-and-disputes"}],"equationChecks":[{"targetSectionId":"mathematical-assumptions","tex":"x(t)=x(0)\\exp[-\\int_0^t\\Gamma(t\\prime)dt\\prime]","check":"Three illustrative piecewise hazard histories checked against independent RK4 integration; no fitted material lifetime."},{"targetSectionId":"mathematical-assumptions","tex":"f\\simeq\\pi|M|/(Hr^3)","check":"Three thickness/volume reconstructions and hypothetical radius sensitivity; reported cgs convention only."}],"materialCases":[{"id":"scwiki-e10-material-1","formula":"HgBa2Ca2Cu3O8+δ","sample":"Deng S1 experiment1; PQ26.0GPa at77.0K","recordType":"experiment","reportedTemperatureK":139,"tcK":139,"temperatureKind":"transition","temperatureNote":"Ambient onset after pressure quench; reported retained onset. Not zero resistance.","criterion":"resistive-onset","pressureRegime":"ambient","pressureGPa":null,"equilibrium":"metastable","probe":"Resistance derivative","sourceId":"source-14d1e9e0097f7ffb","aliases":["Hg-1223","Hg1223","Deng S1"],"preparation":{"method":"pressure-quench","pressureGPa":{"min":26,"max":26},"temperatureK":77,"releaseRateGPaPerSecond":null,"sourceId":"source-14d1e9e0097f7ffb","sourceLocation":"Figure 2F (author p.15); transport methods pp.8-9","notes":"Figure value retained; introduction says 26.3 GPa instead of 26.0 GPa, an unresolved source discrepancy. Pressure calibration was at room temperature; the value is not an in-situ cold pressure measurement."}},{"id":"scwiki-e10-material-2","formula":"HgBa2Ca2Cu3O8+δ","sample":"Deng S1 experiment2; PQ28.4GPa at4.2K","recordType":"experiment","reportedTemperatureK":147,"tcK":147,"temperatureKind":"transition","temperatureNote":"Ambient onset after pressure quench; reported retained onset. Not zero resistance.","criterion":"resistive-onset","pressureRegime":"ambient","pressureGPa":null,"equilibrium":"metastable","probe":"Resistance derivative","sourceId":"source-14d1e9e0097f7ffb","aliases":["Hg-1223","Hg1223","Deng S1"],"preparation":{"method":"pressure-quench","pressureGPa":{"min":28.4,"max":28.4},"temperatureK":4.2,"releaseRateGPaPerSecond":null,"sourceId":"source-14d1e9e0097f7ffb","sourceLocation":"Figure 2F (author p.15); transport methods pp.8-9","notes":"S1 second preparation; distinct from its earlier77 K run. Pressure calibration was at room temperature; the value is not an in-situ cold pressure measurement."}},{"id":"scwiki-e10-material-3","formula":"HgBa2Ca2Cu3O8+δ","sample":"Deng S2 experiment3; PQ10.1GPa at4.2K","recordType":"experiment","reportedTemperatureK":147,"tcK":147,"temperatureKind":"transition","temperatureNote":"Ambient onset after pressure quench; reported retained onset. Not zero resistance.","criterion":"resistive-onset","pressureRegime":"ambient","pressureGPa":null,"equilibrium":"metastable","probe":"Resistance derivative","sourceId":"source-14d1e9e0097f7ffb","aliases":["Hg-1223","Hg1223","Deng S2"],"preparation":{"method":"pressure-quench","pressureGPa":{"min":10.1,"max":10.1},"temperatureK":4.2,"releaseRateGPaPerSecond":null,"sourceId":"source-14d1e9e0097f7ffb","sourceLocation":"Figure 2F (author p.15); transport methods pp.8-9","notes":"S2 transport after release; later retrieval magnetism is a separate observation. Pressure calibration was at room temperature; the value is not an in-situ cold pressure measurement."}},{"id":"scwiki-e10-material-4","formula":"HgBa2Ca2Cu3O8+δ","sample":"Deng S3 experiment4; PQ10.9GPa at4.2K","recordType":"experiment","reportedTemperatureK":149,"tcK":149,"temperatureKind":"transition","temperatureNote":"Ambient onset after pressure quench; warming149.0K/cooling148.0K. Not zero resistance.","criterion":"resistive-onset","pressureRegime":"ambient","pressureGPa":null,"equilibrium":"metastable","probe":"Resistance derivative","sourceId":"source-14d1e9e0097f7ffb","aliases":["Hg-1223","Hg1223","Deng S3"],"preparation":{"method":"pressure-quench","pressureGPa":{"min":10.9,"max":10.9},"temperatureK":4.2,"releaseRateGPaPerSecond":null,"sourceId":"source-14d1e9e0097f7ffb","sourceLocation":"Figure 2F (author p.15); transport methods pp.8-9","notes":"S3 transport; storage and thermal cycles must remain attached to this specimen. Pressure calibration was at room temperature; the value is not an in-situ cold pressure measurement."}},{"id":"scwiki-e10-material-5","formula":"HgBa2Ca2Cu3O8+δ","sample":"Deng S4 experiment5; PQ18.9GPa at4.2K","recordType":"experiment","reportedTemperatureK":151,"tcK":151,"temperatureKind":"transition","temperatureNote":"Ambient onset after pressure quench; warming151.0K/cooling150.0K. Not zero resistance.","criterion":"resistive-onset","pressureRegime":"ambient","pressureGPa":null,"equilibrium":"metastable","probe":"Resistance derivative","sourceId":"source-14d1e9e0097f7ffb","aliases":["Hg-1223","Hg1223","Deng S4"],"preparation":{"method":"pressure-quench","pressureGPa":{"min":18.9,"max":18.9},"temperatureK":4.2,"releaseRateGPaPerSecond":null,"sourceId":"source-14d1e9e0097f7ffb","sourceLocation":"Figure 2F (author p.15); transport methods pp.8-9","notes":"S4 onset; no transfer of S2 magnetism or S3 storage evidence. Pressure calibration was at room temperature; the value is not an in-situ cold pressure measurement."}},{"id":"scwiki-e10-material-6","formula":"HgBa2Ca2Cu3O8+δ","sample":"Deng S2 retrieved after PQ10.1GPa/4.2K","recordType":"experiment","reportedTemperatureK":140,"tcK":140,"temperatureKind":"transition","temperatureNote":"Approximate magnetic transition after retrieval; separate from S4 transport.","criterion":"magnetic-onset","pressureRegime":"ambient","pressureGPa":null,"equilibrium":"metastable","probe":"Magnetization at10Oe","sourceId":"source-14d1e9e0097f7ffb","aliases":["Hg-1223","Hg1223","Deng S2 magnetization"],"preparation":{"method":"pressure-quench","pressureGPa":{"min":10.1,"max":10.1},"temperatureK":4.2,"releaseRateGPaPerSecond":null,"sourceId":"source-14d1e9e0097f7ffb","sourceLocation":"Stability text and Fig.S6 (author pp.6,25); transport methods pp.8-9","notes":"S2 measured after retrieval and handling; do not identify its transition with S4. Pressure calibration was at room temperature; the value is not an in-situ cold pressure measurement."}},{"id":"scwiki-e10-material-7","formula":"HgBa2Ca2Cu3O8+δ","sample":"Deng S2 shielding estimate","recordType":"experiment","reportedTemperatureK":70,"tcK":null,"temperatureKind":"measurement","temperatureNote":"Estimated78% at70K,not at151K; disk approximation.","criterion":"shielding-estimate-temperature","pressureRegime":"ambient","pressureGPa":null,"equilibrium":"metastable","probe":"Magnetization at10Oe","sourceId":"source-14d1e9e0097f7ffb","aliases":["Hg-1223","Hg1223","Deng S2 magnetization"],"preparation":{"method":"pressure-quench","pressureGPa":{"min":10.1,"max":10.1},"temperatureK":4.2,"releaseRateGPaPerSecond":null,"sourceId":"source-14d1e9e0097f7ffb","sourceLocation":"Magnetization methods and Fig.S6 (author pp.9,25); transport methods pp.8-9","notes":"Same retrieved S2; 70 K is the shielding-estimate measurement temperature. Pressure calibration was at room temperature; the value is not an in-situ cold pressure measurement."}},{"id":"scwiki-e10-material-8","formula":"HgBa2Ca2Cu3O8+δ","sample":"Deng S5 after PQ29.7GPa/4.2K","recordType":"experiment","reportedTemperatureK":172,"tcK":null,"temperatureKind":"unassigned","temperatureNote":"Broad one-time anomaly not reproduced; no confirmedTc.","criterion":"unreproduced-resistive-anomaly","pressureRegime":"ambient","pressureGPa":null,"equilibrium":"unknown","probe":"Resistance on warming","sourceId":"source-14d1e9e0097f7ffb","aliases":["Hg-1223","Hg1223","Deng S5"],"preparation":{"method":"pressure-quench","pressureGPa":{"min":29.7,"max":29.7},"temperatureK":4.2,"releaseRateGPaPerSecond":null,"sourceId":"source-14d1e9e0097f7ffb","sourceLocation":"Fig.S2 (author p.21); transport methods pp.8-9","notes":"S5 unassigned anomaly; preparation does not convert it into a confirmed transition. Pressure calibration was at room temperature; the value is not an in-situ cold pressure measurement."}},{"id":"scwiki-e10-material-9","formula":"HgBa2Ca2Cu3O8+δ","sample":"Deng S3 storage protocol","recordType":"experiment","reportedTemperatureK":77,"tcK":null,"temperatureKind":"measurement","temperatureNote":"Up to3days at77K; not room-temperature lifetime.","criterion":"storage-temperature","pressureRegime":"ambient","pressureGPa":null,"equilibrium":"metastable","probe":"Resistance after cold storage","sourceId":"source-14d1e9e0097f7ffb","aliases":["Hg-1223","Hg1223","Deng S3"],"preparation":{"method":"pressure-quench","pressureGPa":{"min":10.9,"max":10.9},"temperatureK":4.2,"releaseRateGPaPerSecond":null,"sourceId":"source-14d1e9e0097f7ffb","sourceLocation":"Fig.S5 (author p.24); transport methods pp.8-9","notes":"S3 storage at 77 K interrupted by measurements at 9 h,1 d,2 d,3 d reaching 160 or 170 K; no isolated isothermal lifetime. Pressure calibration was at room temperature; the value is not an in-situ cold pressure measurement."}}],"sourceMap":[{"startLine":1,"endLine":75,"targetSections":["scope","mathematical-assumptions","experimental-criteria","limits-and-disputes","discovery-implications","related-topics"],"decision":"edited-with-scoped-evidence","note":"Pinned source preserved; corrected author identity and bound temperature/pressure/storage to measured specimens."}],"body":"## Scope\n\nPressure quenching is a preparation path: establish a state under pressure, cool while maintaining load, release pressure at a chosen temperature, then measure the recovered specimen. Quench pressure and measurement pressure are different fields. A retained state may be metastable, and its properties depend on unloading, defects and subsequent temperature excursions. This topic concerns decompressed specimens; superconductivity measured under load belongs to pressure tuning. [R3](#ref-source-14d1e9e0097f7ffb)\n\nSchilling's 1993 discovery paper reports magnetic and resistive evidence around 133 K in Hg-based cuprates. Gao's 1994 study reports resistive superconductivity up to 164 K under quasihydrostatic pressure. Those publisher abstracts establish historical context here, not a verified pressure-specific zero-resistance criterion. They do not establish that the high-pressure state survives unloading. [R1](#ref-source-6d09a24a26a15997) [R2](#ref-source-d95477ebe515f481)\n\n## Mathematical assumptions\n\nAn illustrative kinetic model assigns a retained fraction $x$ a one-way escape rate $\\Gamma$: $\\dot x=-\\Gamma x$, hence $x(t)=x(0)\\exp[-\\int_0^t\\Gamma(P(t'),T(t'))dt']$. A thermally activated approximation is $\\Gamma=\\Gamma_0\\exp[-\\Delta G^\\ddagger/(k_BT)]$. The prefactor has units of inverse time; the integral is dimensionless. This assumes a single effective barrier and negligible repopulation. Kramers' classical escape analysis also makes the prefactor depend on damping; it does not justify ignoring tunneling, barrier distributions or transformations involving nucleation and growth. No Hg-1223 barrier or lifetime is extracted here. [R4](#ref-source-26d03be9d47579df)\n\nFor the retrieved Hg-1223 specimen, the authors estimate a shielding fraction using a thin-disk geometry: $f\\simeq\\pi|M|/(Hr^3)$ with their cgs moment/field convention. Taking $|M|/H=1.9\\times10^{-8}$ emu/Oe and effective radius $r=42.5$ micrometres gives $f\\approx0.778$. This reproduces the reported arithmetic, not an independent volume measurement. Because $f\\propto r^{-3}$, a hypothetical radius change of ±5% gives roughly 67–91%; that sensitivity interval is not a reported confidence interval. Thickness cancels only within the stated disk approximation. Background subtraction, irregular shape, penetration and flux pinning still matter. [R3](#ref-source-14d1e9e0097f7ffb)\n\n## Experimental criteria\n\nDeng and colleagues' 2026 paper defines its quoted transition temperatures as resistive onsets using the temperature derivative. Author Figure 2 compares five quench experiments: S1 at 26.0 GPa/77 K retained 139 K; S1 at 28.4 GPa/4.2 K retained 147 K; S2 at 10.1 GPa/4.2 K retained 147 K; S3 at 10.9 GPa/4.2 K retained 149 K on warming and 148 K on cooling; S4 at 18.9 GPa/4.2 K retained 151 K on warming and 150 K on cooling. These are ambient-pressure measurements after quenching, with broad transitions. The highest onset is not a measured 151 K zero-resistance threshold. Multiple runs from this group are not independent laboratory replication. [R3](#ref-source-14d1e9e0097f7ffb)\n\nMagnetization was measured on retrieved S2 after its 10.1 GPa/4.2 K preparation and subsequent handling. Its magnetic transition was near 140 K in a 10 Oe field; the approximately 78% estimate applies at 70 K. It must not be transferred to S4 at 151 K. Author Figure S6 multiplies the post-quench curve by ten for display; its specimen photograph is approximately 104 by 66 micrometres. Comparing plotted amplitudes without the scale correction would give a misleading fraction. [R3](#ref-source-14d1e9e0097f7ffb)\n\nThe stability experiment used S3, initially near 149 K: storage at 77 K was interrupted by transport measurements after 9 hours and 1, 2 and 3 days, with warming to 160 or 170 K. The reported slight decrease therefore belongs to this combined storage-and-cycling path, not a calibrated isothermal decay curve. A change in onset temperature is not itself a measured transformed volume fraction. A separate S2 cycle to 293 K lowered its onset from about 147 K to 143 K. Cold-storage survival does not establish a room-temperature shelf life for the 151 K specimen. In S5 after a 29.7 GPa/4.2 K quench, a broad warming anomaly extended to about 172 K, disappeared on subsequent cooling after a 180–193 K excursion, and was not reproduced. This entry records 172 K as an unassigned anomaly, with no searchable superconducting transition temperature. [R3](#ref-source-14d1e9e0097f7ffb)\n\nThe transport methods use van der Pauw contacts, a solid cubic-boron-nitride pressure medium and room-temperature ruby-fluorescence/diamond-Raman pressure calibration. Screws were released while cold. These details should accompany the preparation path; a generic label such as hydrostatic pressure is insufficient for the actual stress environment. The checked methods describe cold screw release without a quantitative release-rate value. The new preparation records therefore retain an unknown rate, separately from the ambient measurement pressure. For S1 experiment 1, Figure 2F reports 26.0 GPa while the introduction says 26.3 GPa; the record follows the figure and flags the unresolved difference rather than treating it as a measured uncertainty interval. [R3](#ref-source-14d1e9e0097f7ffb)\n\n| Specimen or run | Preparation and observation | Evidence boundary |\n| --- | --- | --- |\n| S1, experiments 1 and 2 | Separate pressure releases at 77 K and 4.2 K; ambient transport afterward | Different runs are not independent specimens; Figure 2 and the introduction disagree on the first pressure value. [R3](#ref-source-14d1e9e0097f7ffb) |\n| S2 | Transport after release, thermal cycling, then magnetization after retrieval | A retrieved magnetic measurement must retain its own handling history and transition criterion. [R3](#ref-source-14d1e9e0097f7ffb) |\n| S3 | Cold storage with repeated warming and cooling measurements | The three-day observation does not isolate a single-temperature lifetime or measure a retained fraction. [R3](#ref-source-14d1e9e0097f7ffb) |\n| S4 | Highest reported ambient onset after an 18.9 GPa preparation | S2 magnetism and S3 storage do not establish the same properties for this specimen. [R3](#ref-source-14d1e9e0097f7ffb) |\n| S5 | A broad warming anomaly after a separate preparation | The unreplicated 172 K feature remains unassigned and has no searchable transition temperature. [R3](#ref-source-14d1e9e0097f7ffb) |\n\n## Limits and disputes\n\nThe reported tetragonal structure persists in diffraction measurements up to 15 GPa, while recovered peaks broaden and lattice parameters change slightly. Those observations do not establish identical microscopic states before and after quenching. Calculated phonon stability in the tested model and a possible electronic Lifshitz feature are candidate explanations, not a measurement of the pairing cause or proof of global thermodynamic stability. No independent replication has been verified in this review; that is a review limitation, not proof that none exists. [R3](#ref-source-14d1e9e0097f7ffb)\n\nThe journal article was published online on 9 March 2026; the checked author manuscript is arXiv v1 dated 12 March. Selected final PMC text was compared with author transport/magnetization methods and Figures 2, S2, S5 and S6. The final supplementary file could not be newly accessed during this follow-up; the author version is retained without claiming equivalence. Final supplementary-file comparison, raw-data reanalysis and complete scientific acceptance remain open. The inherited bibliography names X. Deng; the published first author is Liangzi Deng. Gao and Schilling remain abstract-level checks here. Kramers supplies a simplified classical model, not a validated mechanism for this material. [R1](#ref-source-6d09a24a26a15997) [R2](#ref-source-d95477ebe515f481) [R3](#ref-source-14d1e9e0097f7ffb) [R4](#ref-source-26d03be9d47579df)\n\n## Discovery implications\n\nA useful follow-up tracks the same specimen before loading, under load and after release, combining transport, magnetism, composition and structure. Publish the complete pressure–temperature–time path, repeat cycles and failure cases, and measure retention versus temperature and time. Search records should distinguish preparation pressure from observation pressure and retain onset, zero-resistance, magnetic and unassigned-anomaly criteria separately. Applying this strategy to a different material is a proposal requiring new evidence; success in Hg-1223 does not guarantee a retained hydride or nickelate phase. [R3](#ref-source-14d1e9e0097f7ffb) [R4](#ref-source-26d03be9d47579df)\n\n## Related topics\n\nCompare [pressure tuning](/scwiki/pressure-tuning), [strain](/scwiki/strain), [chemical pressure](/scwiki/chemical-doping) and [cuprates](/scwiki/cuprates).","revision":"067153aa5412e87a7019","sections":[{"id":"scope","title":"Scope","markdown":"## Scope\n\nPressure quenching is a preparation path: establish a state under pressure, cool while maintaining load, release pressure at a chosen temperature, then measure the recovered specimen. Quench pressure and measurement pressure are different fields. A retained state may be metastable, and its properties depend on unloading, defects and subsequent temperature excursions. This topic concerns decompressed specimens; superconductivity measured under load belongs to pressure tuning. [R3](#ref-source-14d1e9e0097f7ffb)\n\nSchilling's 1993 discovery paper reports magnetic and resistive evidence around 133 K in Hg-based cuprates. Gao's 1994 study reports resistive superconductivity up to 164 K under quasihydrostatic pressure. Those publisher abstracts establish historical context here, not a verified pressure-specific zero-resistance criterion. They do not establish that the high-pressure state survives unloading. [R1](#ref-source-6d09a24a26a15997) [R2](#ref-source-d95477ebe515f481)"},{"id":"mathematical-assumptions","title":"Mathematical assumptions","markdown":"## Mathematical assumptions\n\nAn illustrative kinetic model assigns a retained fraction $x$ a one-way escape rate $\\Gamma$: $\\dot x=-\\Gamma x$, hence $x(t)=x(0)\\exp[-\\int_0^t\\Gamma(P(t'),T(t'))dt']$. A thermally activated approximation is $\\Gamma=\\Gamma_0\\exp[-\\Delta G^\\ddagger/(k_BT)]$. The prefactor has units of inverse time; the integral is dimensionless. This assumes a single effective barrier and negligible repopulation. Kramers' classical escape analysis also makes the prefactor depend on damping; it does not justify ignoring tunneling, barrier distributions or transformations involving nucleation and growth. No Hg-1223 barrier or lifetime is extracted here. [R4](#ref-source-26d03be9d47579df)\n\nFor the retrieved Hg-1223 specimen, the authors estimate a shielding fraction using a thin-disk geometry: $f\\simeq\\pi|M|/(Hr^3)$ with their cgs moment/field convention. Taking $|M|/H=1.9\\times10^{-8}$ emu/Oe and effective radius $r=42.5$ micrometres gives $f\\approx0.778$. This reproduces the reported arithmetic, not an independent volume measurement. Because $f\\propto r^{-3}$, a hypothetical radius change of ±5% gives roughly 67–91%; that sensitivity interval is not a reported confidence interval. Thickness cancels only within the stated disk approximation. Background subtraction, irregular shape, penetration and flux pinning still matter. [R3](#ref-source-14d1e9e0097f7ffb)"},{"id":"experimental-criteria","title":"Experimental criteria","markdown":"## Experimental criteria\n\nDeng and colleagues' 2026 paper defines its quoted transition temperatures as resistive onsets using the temperature derivative. Author Figure 2 compares five quench experiments: S1 at 26.0 GPa/77 K retained 139 K; S1 at 28.4 GPa/4.2 K retained 147 K; S2 at 10.1 GPa/4.2 K retained 147 K; S3 at 10.9 GPa/4.2 K retained 149 K on warming and 148 K on cooling; S4 at 18.9 GPa/4.2 K retained 151 K on warming and 150 K on cooling. These are ambient-pressure measurements after quenching, with broad transitions. The highest onset is not a measured 151 K zero-resistance threshold. Multiple runs from this group are not independent laboratory replication. [R3](#ref-source-14d1e9e0097f7ffb)\n\nMagnetization was measured on retrieved S2 after its 10.1 GPa/4.2 K preparation and subsequent handling. Its magnetic transition was near 140 K in a 10 Oe field; the approximately 78% estimate applies at 70 K. It must not be transferred to S4 at 151 K. Author Figure S6 multiplies the post-quench curve by ten for display; its specimen photograph is approximately 104 by 66 micrometres. Comparing plotted amplitudes without the scale correction would give a misleading fraction. [R3](#ref-source-14d1e9e0097f7ffb)\n\nThe stability experiment used S3, initially near 149 K: storage at 77 K was interrupted by transport measurements after 9 hours and 1, 2 and 3 days, with warming to 160 or 170 K. The reported slight decrease therefore belongs to this combined storage-and-cycling path, not a calibrated isothermal decay curve. A change in onset temperature is not itself a measured transformed volume fraction. A separate S2 cycle to 293 K lowered its onset from about 147 K to 143 K. Cold-storage survival does not establish a room-temperature shelf life for the 151 K specimen. In S5 after a 29.7 GPa/4.2 K quench, a broad warming anomaly extended to about 172 K, disappeared on subsequent cooling after a 180–193 K excursion, and was not reproduced. This entry records 172 K as an unassigned anomaly, with no searchable superconducting transition temperature. [R3](#ref-source-14d1e9e0097f7ffb)\n\nThe transport methods use van der Pauw contacts, a solid cubic-boron-nitride pressure medium and room-temperature ruby-fluorescence/diamond-Raman pressure calibration. Screws were released while cold. These details should accompany the preparation path; a generic label such as hydrostatic pressure is insufficient for the actual stress environment. The checked methods describe cold screw release without a quantitative release-rate value. The new preparation records therefore retain an unknown rate, separately from the ambient measurement pressure. For S1 experiment 1, Figure 2F reports 26.0 GPa while the introduction says 26.3 GPa; the record follows the figure and flags the unresolved difference rather than treating it as a measured uncertainty interval. [R3](#ref-source-14d1e9e0097f7ffb)\n\n| Specimen or run | Preparation and observation | Evidence boundary |\n| --- | --- | --- |\n| S1, experiments 1 and 2 | Separate pressure releases at 77 K and 4.2 K; ambient transport afterward | Different runs are not independent specimens; Figure 2 and the introduction disagree on the first pressure value. [R3](#ref-source-14d1e9e0097f7ffb) |\n| S2 | Transport after release, thermal cycling, then magnetization after retrieval | A retrieved magnetic measurement must retain its own handling history and transition criterion. [R3](#ref-source-14d1e9e0097f7ffb) |\n| S3 | Cold storage with repeated warming and cooling measurements | The three-day observation does not isolate a single-temperature lifetime or measure a retained fraction. [R3](#ref-source-14d1e9e0097f7ffb) |\n| S4 | Highest reported ambient onset after an 18.9 GPa preparation | S2 magnetism and S3 storage do not establish the same properties for this specimen. [R3](#ref-source-14d1e9e0097f7ffb) |\n| S5 | A broad warming anomaly after a separate preparation | The unreplicated 172 K feature remains unassigned and has no searchable transition temperature. [R3](#ref-source-14d1e9e0097f7ffb) |"},{"id":"limits-and-disputes","title":"Limits and disputes","markdown":"## Limits and disputes\n\nThe reported tetragonal structure persists in diffraction measurements up to 15 GPa, while recovered peaks broaden and lattice parameters change slightly. Those observations do not establish identical microscopic states before and after quenching. Calculated phonon stability in the tested model and a possible electronic Lifshitz feature are candidate explanations, not a measurement of the pairing cause or proof of global thermodynamic stability. No independent replication has been verified in this review; that is a review limitation, not proof that none exists. [R3](#ref-source-14d1e9e0097f7ffb)\n\nThe journal article was published online on 9 March 2026; the checked author manuscript is arXiv v1 dated 12 March. Selected final PMC text was compared with author transport/magnetization methods and Figures 2, S2, S5 and S6. The final supplementary file could not be newly accessed during this follow-up; the author version is retained without claiming equivalence. Final supplementary-file comparison, raw-data reanalysis and complete scientific acceptance remain open. The inherited bibliography names X. Deng; the published first author is Liangzi Deng. Gao and Schilling remain abstract-level checks here. Kramers supplies a simplified classical model, not a validated mechanism for this material. [R1](#ref-source-6d09a24a26a15997) [R2](#ref-source-d95477ebe515f481) [R3](#ref-source-14d1e9e0097f7ffb) [R4](#ref-source-26d03be9d47579df)"},{"id":"discovery-implications","title":"Discovery implications","markdown":"## Discovery implications\n\nA useful follow-up tracks the same specimen before loading, under load and after release, combining transport, magnetism, composition and structure. Publish the complete pressure–temperature–time path, repeat cycles and failure cases, and measure retention versus temperature and time. Search records should distinguish preparation pressure from observation pressure and retain onset, zero-resistance, magnetic and unassigned-anomaly criteria separately. Applying this strategy to a different material is a proposal requiring new evidence; success in Hg-1223 does not guarantee a retained hydride or nickelate phase. [R3](#ref-source-14d1e9e0097f7ffb) [R4](#ref-source-26d03be9d47579df)"},{"id":"related-topics","title":"Related topics","markdown":"## Related topics\n\nCompare [pressure tuning](/scwiki/pressure-tuning), [strain](/scwiki/strain), [chemical pressure](/scwiki/chemical-doping) and [cuprates](/scwiki/cuprates)."},{"id":"material-cases","title":"Material cases","markdown":"## Material cases\n\nValues describe individual reports, not a ranking. Unknown means the checked source did not supply the field at this review scope.\n\n| Material and sample | Reported temperature | Criterion | Probe | Pressure | State | Evidence |\n|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|\n| HgBa2Ca2Cu3O8+δ (aliases: Hg-1223, Hg1223, Deng S1); Deng S1 experiment1; PQ26.0GPa at77.0K | 139 K; Ambient onset after pressure quench; reported retained onset. Not zero resistance. | transition; resistive-onset | Resistance derivative | ambient; unknown GPa | metastable | experiment; [source](#ref-source-14d1e9e0097f7ffb) |\n| HgBa2Ca2Cu3O8+δ (aliases: Hg-1223, Hg1223, Deng S1); Deng S1 experiment2; PQ28.4GPa at4.2K | 147 K; Ambient onset after pressure quench; reported retained onset. Not zero resistance. | transition; resistive-onset | Resistance derivative | ambient; unknown GPa | metastable | experiment; [source](#ref-source-14d1e9e0097f7ffb) |\n| HgBa2Ca2Cu3O8+δ (aliases: Hg-1223, Hg1223, Deng S2); Deng S2 experiment3; PQ10.1GPa at4.2K | 147 K; Ambient onset after pressure quench; reported retained onset. Not zero resistance. | transition; resistive-onset | Resistance derivative | ambient; unknown GPa | metastable | experiment; [source](#ref-source-14d1e9e0097f7ffb) |\n| HgBa2Ca2Cu3O8+δ (aliases: Hg-1223, Hg1223, Deng S3); Deng S3 experiment4; PQ10.9GPa at4.2K | 149 K; Ambient onset after pressure quench; warming149.0K/cooling148.0K. Not zero resistance. | transition; resistive-onset | Resistance derivative | ambient; unknown GPa | metastable | experiment; [source](#ref-source-14d1e9e0097f7ffb) |\n| HgBa2Ca2Cu3O8+δ (aliases: Hg-1223, Hg1223, Deng S4); Deng S4 experiment5; PQ18.9GPa at4.2K | 151 K; Ambient onset after pressure quench; warming151.0K/cooling150.0K. Not zero resistance. | transition; resistive-onset | Resistance derivative | ambient; unknown GPa | metastable | experiment; [source](#ref-source-14d1e9e0097f7ffb) |\n| HgBa2Ca2Cu3O8+δ (aliases: Hg-1223, Hg1223, Deng S2 magnetization); Deng S2 retrieved after PQ10.1GPa/4.2K | 140 K; Approximate magnetic transition after retrieval; separate from S4 transport. | transition; magnetic-onset | Magnetization at10Oe | ambient; unknown GPa | metastable | experiment; [source](#ref-source-14d1e9e0097f7ffb) |\n| HgBa2Ca2Cu3O8+δ (aliases: Hg-1223, Hg1223, Deng S2 magnetization); Deng S2 shielding estimate | 70 K; Estimated78% at70K,not at151K; disk approximation. | measurement; shielding-estimate-temperature | Magnetization at10Oe | ambient; unknown GPa | metastable | experiment; [source](#ref-source-14d1e9e0097f7ffb) |\n| HgBa2Ca2Cu3O8+δ (aliases: Hg-1223, Hg1223, Deng S5); Deng S5 after PQ29.7GPa/4.2K | 172 K; Broad one-time anomaly not reproduced; no confirmedTc. | unassigned; unreproduced-resistive-anomaly | Resistance on warming | ambient; unknown GPa | unknown | experiment; [source](#ref-source-14d1e9e0097f7ffb) |\n| HgBa2Ca2Cu3O8+δ (aliases: Hg-1223, Hg1223, Deng S3); Deng S3 storage protocol | 77 K; Up to3days at77K; not room-temperature lifetime. | measurement; storage-temperature | Resistance after cold storage | ambient; unknown GPa | metastable | experiment; [source](#ref-source-14d1e9e0097f7ffb) |\n\n### Preparation history\n\nThe pressure column above describes measurement conditions. Preparation pressure and temperature below describe an earlier step; they are not measurement pressure or superconducting transition temperature. Unknown release rate is not zero.\n\n| Sample | Preparation pressure | Preparation temperature | Pressure release rate | Source and limits |\n|---|---|---|---|---|\n| Deng S1 experiment1; PQ26.0GPa at77.0K | 26 to 26 GPa | 77 K | Unknown | Figure 2F (author p.15); transport methods pp.8-9. Figure value retained; introduction says 26.3 GPa instead of 26.0 GPa, an unresolved source discrepancy. Pressure calibration was at room temperature; the value is not an in-situ cold pressure measurement. [source](#ref-source-14d1e9e0097f7ffb) |\n| Deng S1 experiment2; PQ28.4GPa at4.2K | 28.4 to 28.4 GPa | 4.2 K | Unknown | Figure 2F (author p.15); transport methods pp.8-9. S1 second preparation; distinct from its earlier77 K run. Pressure calibration was at room temperature; the value is not an in-situ cold pressure measurement. [source](#ref-source-14d1e9e0097f7ffb) |\n| Deng S2 experiment3; PQ10.1GPa at4.2K | 10.1 to 10.1 GPa | 4.2 K | Unknown | Figure 2F (author p.15); transport methods pp.8-9. S2 transport after release; later retrieval magnetism is a separate observation. Pressure calibration was at room temperature; the value is not an in-situ cold pressure measurement. [source](#ref-source-14d1e9e0097f7ffb) |\n| Deng S3 experiment4; PQ10.9GPa at4.2K | 10.9 to 10.9 GPa | 4.2 K | Unknown | Figure 2F (author p.15); transport methods pp.8-9. S3 transport; storage and thermal cycles must remain attached to this specimen. Pressure calibration was at room temperature; the value is not an in-situ cold pressure measurement. [source](#ref-source-14d1e9e0097f7ffb) |\n| Deng S4 experiment5; PQ18.9GPa at4.2K | 18.9 to 18.9 GPa | 4.2 K | Unknown | Figure 2F (author p.15); transport methods pp.8-9. S4 onset; no transfer of S2 magnetism or S3 storage evidence. Pressure calibration was at room temperature; the value is not an in-situ cold pressure measurement. [source](#ref-source-14d1e9e0097f7ffb) |\n| Deng S2 retrieved after PQ10.1GPa/4.2K | 10.1 to 10.1 GPa | 4.2 K | Unknown | Stability text and Fig.S6 (author pp.6,25); transport methods pp.8-9. S2 measured after retrieval and handling; do not identify its transition with S4. Pressure calibration was at room temperature; the value is not an in-situ cold pressure measurement. [source](#ref-source-14d1e9e0097f7ffb) |\n| Deng S2 shielding estimate | 10.1 to 10.1 GPa | 4.2 K | Unknown | Magnetization methods and Fig.S6 (author pp.9,25); transport methods pp.8-9. Same retrieved S2; 70 K is the shielding-estimate measurement temperature. Pressure calibration was at room temperature; the value is not an in-situ cold pressure measurement. [source](#ref-source-14d1e9e0097f7ffb) |\n| Deng S5 after PQ29.7GPa/4.2K | 29.7 to 29.7 GPa | 4.2 K | Unknown | Fig.S2 (author p.21); transport methods pp.8-9. S5 unassigned anomaly; preparation does not convert it into a confirmed transition. Pressure calibration was at room temperature; the value is not an in-situ cold pressure measurement. [source](#ref-source-14d1e9e0097f7ffb) |\n| Deng S3 storage protocol | 10.9 to 10.9 GPa | 4.2 K | Unknown | Fig.S5 (author p.24); transport methods pp.8-9. S3 storage at 77 K interrupted by measurements at 9 h,1 d,2 d,3 d reaching 160 or 170 K; no isolated isothermal lifetime. Pressure calibration was at room temperature; the value is not an in-situ cold pressure measurement. [source](#ref-source-14d1e9e0097f7ffb) |"}],"markdown":"# Pressure quenching: retained states and evidence thresholds\n\nEvaluate decompressed metastable states using sample-specific transport, magnetization, preparation paths and storage histories.\n\n## Scope\n\nPressure quenching is a preparation path: establish a state under pressure, cool while maintaining load, release pressure at a chosen temperature, then measure the recovered specimen. Quench pressure and measurement pressure are different fields. A retained state may be metastable, and its properties depend on unloading, defects and subsequent temperature excursions. This topic concerns decompressed specimens; superconductivity measured under load belongs to pressure tuning. [R3](#ref-source-14d1e9e0097f7ffb)\n\nSchilling's 1993 discovery paper reports magnetic and resistive evidence around 133 K in Hg-based cuprates. Gao's 1994 study reports resistive superconductivity up to 164 K under quasihydrostatic pressure. Those publisher abstracts establish historical context here, not a verified pressure-specific zero-resistance criterion. They do not establish that the high-pressure state survives unloading. [R1](#ref-source-6d09a24a26a15997) [R2](#ref-source-d95477ebe515f481)\n\n## Mathematical assumptions\n\nAn illustrative kinetic model assigns a retained fraction $x$ a one-way escape rate $\\Gamma$: $\\dot x=-\\Gamma x$, hence $x(t)=x(0)\\exp[-\\int_0^t\\Gamma(P(t'),T(t'))dt']$. A thermally activated approximation is $\\Gamma=\\Gamma_0\\exp[-\\Delta G^\\ddagger/(k_BT)]$. The prefactor has units of inverse time; the integral is dimensionless. This assumes a single effective barrier and negligible repopulation. Kramers' classical escape analysis also makes the prefactor depend on damping; it does not justify ignoring tunneling, barrier distributions or transformations involving nucleation and growth. No Hg-1223 barrier or lifetime is extracted here. [R4](#ref-source-26d03be9d47579df)\n\nFor the retrieved Hg-1223 specimen, the authors estimate a shielding fraction using a thin-disk geometry: $f\\simeq\\pi|M|/(Hr^3)$ with their cgs moment/field convention. Taking $|M|/H=1.9\\times10^{-8}$ emu/Oe and effective radius $r=42.5$ micrometres gives $f\\approx0.778$. This reproduces the reported arithmetic, not an independent volume measurement. Because $f\\propto r^{-3}$, a hypothetical radius change of ±5% gives roughly 67–91%; that sensitivity interval is not a reported confidence interval. Thickness cancels only within the stated disk approximation. Background subtraction, irregular shape, penetration and flux pinning still matter. [R3](#ref-source-14d1e9e0097f7ffb)\n\n## Experimental criteria\n\nDeng and colleagues' 2026 paper defines its quoted transition temperatures as resistive onsets using the temperature derivative. Author Figure 2 compares five quench experiments: S1 at 26.0 GPa/77 K retained 139 K; S1 at 28.4 GPa/4.2 K retained 147 K; S2 at 10.1 GPa/4.2 K retained 147 K; S3 at 10.9 GPa/4.2 K retained 149 K on warming and 148 K on cooling; S4 at 18.9 GPa/4.2 K retained 151 K on warming and 150 K on cooling. These are ambient-pressure measurements after quenching, with broad transitions. The highest onset is not a measured 151 K zero-resistance threshold. Multiple runs from this group are not independent laboratory replication. [R3](#ref-source-14d1e9e0097f7ffb)\n\nMagnetization was measured on retrieved S2 after its 10.1 GPa/4.2 K preparation and subsequent handling. Its magnetic transition was near 140 K in a 10 Oe field; the approximately 78% estimate applies at 70 K. It must not be transferred to S4 at 151 K. Author Figure S6 multiplies the post-quench curve by ten for display; its specimen photograph is approximately 104 by 66 micrometres. Comparing plotted amplitudes without the scale correction would give a misleading fraction. [R3](#ref-source-14d1e9e0097f7ffb)\n\nThe stability experiment used S3, initially near 149 K: storage at 77 K was interrupted by transport measurements after 9 hours and 1, 2 and 3 days, with warming to 160 or 170 K. The reported slight decrease therefore belongs to this combined storage-and-cycling path, not a calibrated isothermal decay curve. A change in onset temperature is not itself a measured transformed volume fraction. A separate S2 cycle to 293 K lowered its onset from about 147 K to 143 K. Cold-storage survival does not establish a room-temperature shelf life for the 151 K specimen. In S5 after a 29.7 GPa/4.2 K quench, a broad warming anomaly extended to about 172 K, disappeared on subsequent cooling after a 180–193 K excursion, and was not reproduced. This entry records 172 K as an unassigned anomaly, with no searchable superconducting transition temperature. [R3](#ref-source-14d1e9e0097f7ffb)\n\nThe transport methods use van der Pauw contacts, a solid cubic-boron-nitride pressure medium and room-temperature ruby-fluorescence/diamond-Raman pressure calibration. Screws were released while cold. These details should accompany the preparation path; a generic label such as hydrostatic pressure is insufficient for the actual stress environment. The checked methods describe cold screw release without a quantitative release-rate value. The new preparation records therefore retain an unknown rate, separately from the ambient measurement pressure. For S1 experiment 1, Figure 2F reports 26.0 GPa while the introduction says 26.3 GPa; the record follows the figure and flags the unresolved difference rather than treating it as a measured uncertainty interval. [R3](#ref-source-14d1e9e0097f7ffb)\n\n| Specimen or run | Preparation and observation | Evidence boundary |\n| --- | --- | --- |\n| S1, experiments 1 and 2 | Separate pressure releases at 77 K and 4.2 K; ambient transport afterward | Different runs are not independent specimens; Figure 2 and the introduction disagree on the first pressure value. [R3](#ref-source-14d1e9e0097f7ffb) |\n| S2 | Transport after release, thermal cycling, then magnetization after retrieval | A retrieved magnetic measurement must retain its own handling history and transition criterion. [R3](#ref-source-14d1e9e0097f7ffb) |\n| S3 | Cold storage with repeated warming and cooling measurements | The three-day observation does not isolate a single-temperature lifetime or measure a retained fraction. [R3](#ref-source-14d1e9e0097f7ffb) |\n| S4 | Highest reported ambient onset after an 18.9 GPa preparation | S2 magnetism and S3 storage do not establish the same properties for this specimen. [R3](#ref-source-14d1e9e0097f7ffb) |\n| S5 | A broad warming anomaly after a separate preparation | The unreplicated 172 K feature remains unassigned and has no searchable transition temperature. [R3](#ref-source-14d1e9e0097f7ffb) |\n\n## Limits and disputes\n\nThe reported tetragonal structure persists in diffraction measurements up to 15 GPa, while recovered peaks broaden and lattice parameters change slightly. Those observations do not establish identical microscopic states before and after quenching. Calculated phonon stability in the tested model and a possible electronic Lifshitz feature are candidate explanations, not a measurement of the pairing cause or proof of global thermodynamic stability. No independent replication has been verified in this review; that is a review limitation, not proof that none exists. [R3](#ref-source-14d1e9e0097f7ffb)\n\nThe journal article was published online on 9 March 2026; the checked author manuscript is arXiv v1 dated 12 March. Selected final PMC text was compared with author transport/magnetization methods and Figures 2, S2, S5 and S6. The final supplementary file could not be newly accessed during this follow-up; the author version is retained without claiming equivalence. Final supplementary-file comparison, raw-data reanalysis and complete scientific acceptance remain open. The inherited bibliography names X. Deng; the published first author is Liangzi Deng. Gao and Schilling remain abstract-level checks here. Kramers supplies a simplified classical model, not a validated mechanism for this material. [R1](#ref-source-6d09a24a26a15997) [R2](#ref-source-d95477ebe515f481) [R3](#ref-source-14d1e9e0097f7ffb) [R4](#ref-source-26d03be9d47579df)\n\n## Discovery implications\n\nA useful follow-up tracks the same specimen before loading, under load and after release, combining transport, magnetism, composition and structure. Publish the complete pressure–temperature–time path, repeat cycles and failure cases, and measure retention versus temperature and time. Search records should distinguish preparation pressure from observation pressure and retain onset, zero-resistance, magnetic and unassigned-anomaly criteria separately. Applying this strategy to a different material is a proposal requiring new evidence; success in Hg-1223 does not guarantee a retained hydride or nickelate phase. [R3](#ref-source-14d1e9e0097f7ffb) [R4](#ref-source-26d03be9d47579df)\n\n## Related topics\n\nCompare [pressure tuning](/scwiki/pressure-tuning), [strain](/scwiki/strain), [chemical pressure](/scwiki/chemical-doping) and [cuprates](/scwiki/cuprates).\n\n## Material cases\n\nValues describe individual reports, not a ranking. Unknown means the checked source did not supply the field at this review scope.\n\n| Material and sample | Reported temperature | Criterion | Probe | Pressure | State | Evidence |\n|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|\n| HgBa2Ca2Cu3O8+δ (aliases: Hg-1223, Hg1223, Deng S1); Deng S1 experiment1; PQ26.0GPa at77.0K | 139 K; Ambient onset after pressure quench; reported retained onset. Not zero resistance. | transition; resistive-onset | Resistance derivative | ambient; unknown GPa | metastable | experiment; [source](#ref-source-14d1e9e0097f7ffb) |\n| HgBa2Ca2Cu3O8+δ (aliases: Hg-1223, Hg1223, Deng S1); Deng S1 experiment2; PQ28.4GPa at4.2K | 147 K; Ambient onset after pressure quench; reported retained onset. Not zero resistance. | transition; resistive-onset | Resistance derivative | ambient; unknown GPa | metastable | experiment; [source](#ref-source-14d1e9e0097f7ffb) |\n| HgBa2Ca2Cu3O8+δ (aliases: Hg-1223, Hg1223, Deng S2); Deng S2 experiment3; PQ10.1GPa at4.2K | 147 K; Ambient onset after pressure quench; reported retained onset. Not zero resistance. | transition; resistive-onset | Resistance derivative | ambient; unknown GPa | metastable | experiment; [source](#ref-source-14d1e9e0097f7ffb) |\n| HgBa2Ca2Cu3O8+δ (aliases: Hg-1223, Hg1223, Deng S3); Deng S3 experiment4; PQ10.9GPa at4.2K | 149 K; Ambient onset after pressure quench; warming149.0K/cooling148.0K. Not zero resistance. | transition; resistive-onset | Resistance derivative | ambient; unknown GPa | metastable | experiment; [source](#ref-source-14d1e9e0097f7ffb) |\n| HgBa2Ca2Cu3O8+δ (aliases: Hg-1223, Hg1223, Deng S4); Deng S4 experiment5; PQ18.9GPa at4.2K | 151 K; Ambient onset after pressure quench; warming151.0K/cooling150.0K. Not zero resistance. | transition; resistive-onset | Resistance derivative | ambient; unknown GPa | metastable | experiment; [source](#ref-source-14d1e9e0097f7ffb) |\n| HgBa2Ca2Cu3O8+δ (aliases: Hg-1223, Hg1223, Deng S2 magnetization); Deng S2 retrieved after PQ10.1GPa/4.2K | 140 K; Approximate magnetic transition after retrieval; separate from S4 transport. | transition; magnetic-onset | Magnetization at10Oe | ambient; unknown GPa | metastable | experiment; [source](#ref-source-14d1e9e0097f7ffb) |\n| HgBa2Ca2Cu3O8+δ (aliases: Hg-1223, Hg1223, Deng S2 magnetization); Deng S2 shielding estimate | 70 K; Estimated78% at70K,not at151K; disk approximation. | measurement; shielding-estimate-temperature | Magnetization at10Oe | ambient; unknown GPa | metastable | experiment; [source](#ref-source-14d1e9e0097f7ffb) |\n| HgBa2Ca2Cu3O8+δ (aliases: Hg-1223, Hg1223, Deng S5); Deng S5 after PQ29.7GPa/4.2K | 172 K; Broad one-time anomaly not reproduced; no confirmedTc. | unassigned; unreproduced-resistive-anomaly | Resistance on warming | ambient; unknown GPa | unknown | experiment; [source](#ref-source-14d1e9e0097f7ffb) |\n| HgBa2Ca2Cu3O8+δ (aliases: Hg-1223, Hg1223, Deng S3); Deng S3 storage protocol | 77 K; Up to3days at77K; not room-temperature lifetime. | measurement; storage-temperature | Resistance after cold storage | ambient; unknown GPa | metastable | experiment; [source](#ref-source-14d1e9e0097f7ffb) |\n\n### Preparation history\n\nThe pressure column above describes measurement conditions. Preparation pressure and temperature below describe an earlier step; they are not measurement pressure or superconducting transition temperature. Unknown release rate is not zero.\n\n| Sample | Preparation pressure | Preparation temperature | Pressure release rate | Source and limits |\n|---|---|---|---|---|\n| Deng S1 experiment1; PQ26.0GPa at77.0K | 26 to 26 GPa | 77 K | Unknown | Figure 2F (author p.15); transport methods pp.8-9. Figure value retained; introduction says 26.3 GPa instead of 26.0 GPa, an unresolved source discrepancy. Pressure calibration was at room temperature; the value is not an in-situ cold pressure measurement. [source](#ref-source-14d1e9e0097f7ffb) |\n| Deng S1 experiment2; PQ28.4GPa at4.2K | 28.4 to 28.4 GPa | 4.2 K | Unknown | Figure 2F (author p.15); transport methods pp.8-9. S1 second preparation; distinct from its earlier77 K run. Pressure calibration was at room temperature; the value is not an in-situ cold pressure measurement. [source](#ref-source-14d1e9e0097f7ffb) |\n| Deng S2 experiment3; PQ10.1GPa at4.2K | 10.1 to 10.1 GPa | 4.2 K | Unknown | Figure 2F (author p.15); transport methods pp.8-9. S2 transport after release; later retrieval magnetism is a separate observation. Pressure calibration was at room temperature; the value is not an in-situ cold pressure measurement. [source](#ref-source-14d1e9e0097f7ffb) |\n| Deng S3 experiment4; PQ10.9GPa at4.2K | 10.9 to 10.9 GPa | 4.2 K | Unknown | Figure 2F (author p.15); transport methods pp.8-9. S3 transport; storage and thermal cycles must remain attached to this specimen. Pressure calibration was at room temperature; the value is not an in-situ cold pressure measurement. [source](#ref-source-14d1e9e0097f7ffb) |\n| Deng S4 experiment5; PQ18.9GPa at4.2K | 18.9 to 18.9 GPa | 4.2 K | Unknown | Figure 2F (author p.15); transport methods pp.8-9. S4 onset; no transfer of S2 magnetism or S3 storage evidence. Pressure calibration was at room temperature; the value is not an in-situ cold pressure measurement. [source](#ref-source-14d1e9e0097f7ffb) |\n| Deng S2 retrieved after PQ10.1GPa/4.2K | 10.1 to 10.1 GPa | 4.2 K | Unknown | Stability text and Fig.S6 (author pp.6,25); transport methods pp.8-9. S2 measured after retrieval and handling; do not identify its transition with S4. Pressure calibration was at room temperature; the value is not an in-situ cold pressure measurement. [source](#ref-source-14d1e9e0097f7ffb) |\n| Deng S2 shielding estimate | 10.1 to 10.1 GPa | 4.2 K | Unknown | Magnetization methods and Fig.S6 (author pp.9,25); transport methods pp.8-9. Same retrieved S2; 70 K is the shielding-estimate measurement temperature. Pressure calibration was at room temperature; the value is not an in-situ cold pressure measurement. [source](#ref-source-14d1e9e0097f7ffb) |\n| Deng S5 after PQ29.7GPa/4.2K | 29.7 to 29.7 GPa | 4.2 K | Unknown | Fig.S2 (author p.21); transport methods pp.8-9. S5 unassigned anomaly; preparation does not convert it into a confirmed transition. Pressure calibration was at room temperature; the value is not an in-situ cold pressure measurement. [source](#ref-source-14d1e9e0097f7ffb) |\n| Deng S3 storage protocol | 10.9 to 10.9 GPa | 4.2 K | Unknown | Fig.S5 (author p.24); transport methods pp.8-9. S3 storage at 77 K interrupted by measurements at 9 h,1 d,2 d,3 d reaching 160 or 170 K; no isolated isothermal lifetime. Pressure calibration was at room temperature; the value is not an in-situ cold pressure measurement. [source](#ref-source-14d1e9e0097f7ffb) |\n\n## Sources\n\n### Ref source-6d09a24a26a15997\n\n[R1] Superconductivity up to 164 K in HgBa2Cam−1CumO2m+2+δ (m=1, 2, and 3) under quasihydrostatic pressures (1994). [DOI 10.1103/PhysRevB.50.4260](https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevB.50.4260). Publication: journal-article. Check: publisher-abstract. Checked: 2026-10-18. Resistive maximum164K under pressure; exact31GPa point and transition criterion not checked in full original.\n### Ref source-d95477ebe515f481\n\n[R2] Superconductivity above 130 K in the Hg–Ba–Ca–Cu–O system (1993). [DOI 10.1038/363056a0](https://doi.org/10.1038/363056a0). Publication: journal-article. Check: publisher-abstract-and-bibliography. Checked: 2026-10-18. Published6May1993,Nature363,56–58. Original abstract magnetic/resistive context only; full methods not reviewed.\n### Ref source-14d1e9e0097f7ffb\n\n[R3] Ambient-pressure 151-K superconductivity in HgBa2Ca2Cu3O8+δ via pressure quench (2026). [DOI 10.1073/pnas.2536178123](https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2536178123). Publication: journal-article. Check: selected-author-v1-protocol-and-figure-followup. Checked: 2026-10-20. Prior selected final PMC text comparison retained. This follow-up visually checks author Fig2(p15),S2(p21),S5(p24),S6(p25) and rereads methods/stability text. Preparation pressure differs from measurement pressure; source gives no quantitative cold-release rate in checked methods. S1first pressure discrepancy26.0vs26.3GPa explicitly retained. Final SI could not be newly accessed; equivalence and rawdata review remain open.\n### Ref source-26d03be9d47579df\n\n[R4] Brownian motion in a field of force and the diffusion model of chemical reactions (1940). [DOI 10.1016/S0031-8914(40)90098-2](https://doi.org/10.1016/S0031-8914(40)90098-2). Publication: journal-article. Check: selected-original-classical-escape-analysis. Checked: 2026-10-18. Original introduction and selected sections5–6 pp291–293,299–301 read as extracted text. Large-barrier classical escape and damping limits; no material-specific application validated.\n\n## Claim evidence and conditions\n\n### scwiki-e10-claim-scope-1\n\nPressure quenching is a preparation path: establish a state under pressure, cool while maintaining load, release pressure at a chosen temperature, then measure the recovered specimen. Quench pressure and measurement pressure are different fields. A retained state may be metastable, and its properties depend on unloading, defects and subsequent temperature excursions. This topic concerns decompressed specimens; superconductivity measured under load belongs to pressure tuning.\n\nEvidence: experiment. Sources: source-14d1e9e0097f7ffb.\n\nSource relationship: context-for-editorial-analysis. Editorial distinction between preparation, observation, sample identity and the limits of inference; not a single-source experimental conclusion.\n\nConditions: Bind specimen, preparation pressure/temperature, ambient observation, operational onset/magnetic criterion and warming/storage history.\n\nVerification scope: Selected author-v1 Fig2/S2/S5/S6 and protocol text revisited; final SI comparison and independent scientific acceptance remain open.\n\n### scwiki-e10-claim-scope-2\n\nSchilling's 1993 discovery paper reports magnetic and resistive evidence around 133 K in Hg-based cuprates. Gao's 1994 study reports resistive superconductivity up to 164 K under quasihydrostatic pressure. Those publisher abstracts establish historical context here, not a verified pressure-specific zero-resistance criterion. They do not establish that the high-pressure state survives unloading.\n\nEvidence: experiment. Sources: source-6d09a24a26a15997, source-d95477ebe515f481.\n\nSource relationship: context-for-editorial-analysis. Editorial distinction between preparation, observation, sample identity and the limits of inference; not a single-source experimental conclusion.\n\nConditions: Bind specimen, preparation pressure/temperature, ambient observation, operational onset/magnetic criterion and warming/storage history.\n\nVerification scope: Selected author-v1 Fig2/S2/S5/S6 and protocol text revisited; final SI comparison and independent scientific acceptance remain open.\n\n### scwiki-e10-claim-mathematical-assumptions-1\n\nAn illustrative kinetic model assigns a retained fraction $x$ a one-way escape rate $\\Gamma$: $\\dot x=-\\Gamma x$, hence $x(t)=x(0)\\exp[-\\int_0^t\\Gamma(P(t'),T(t'))dt']$. A thermally activated approximation is $\\Gamma=\\Gamma_0\\exp[-\\Delta G^\\ddagger/(k_BT)]$. The prefactor has units of inverse time; the integral is dimensionless. This assumes a single effective barrier and negligible repopulation. Kramers' classical escape analysis also makes the prefactor depend on damping; it does not justify ignoring tunneling, barrier distributions or transformations involving nucleation and growth. No Hg-1223 barrier or lifetime is extracted here.\n\nEvidence: theory. Sources: source-26d03be9d47579df.\n\nSource relationship: context-for-local-derivation. Illustrative escape model or reported disk-estimate arithmetic; neither yields a fitted retention barrier, measured lifetime or independent magnetic volume.\n\nConditions: Bind specimen, preparation pressure/temperature, ambient observation, operational onset/magnetic criterion and warming/storage history.\n\nVerification scope: Selected author-v1 Fig2/S2/S5/S6 and protocol text revisited; final SI comparison and independent scientific acceptance remain open.\n\n### scwiki-e10-claim-mathematical-assumptions-2\n\nFor the retrieved Hg-1223 specimen, the authors estimate a shielding fraction using a thin-disk geometry: $f\\simeq\\pi|M|/(Hr^3)$ with their cgs moment/field convention. Taking $|M|/H=1.9\\times10^{-8}$ emu/Oe and effective radius $r=42.5$ micrometres gives $f\\approx0.778$. This reproduces the reported arithmetic, not an independent volume measurement. Because $f\\propto r^{-3}$, a hypothetical radius change of ±5% gives roughly 67–91%; that sensitivity interval is not a reported confidence interval. Thickness cancels only within the stated disk approximation. Background subtraction, irregular shape, penetration and flux pinning still matter.\n\nEvidence: theory. Sources: source-14d1e9e0097f7ffb.\n\nSource relationship: context-for-local-derivation. Illustrative escape model or reported disk-estimate arithmetic; neither yields a fitted retention barrier, measured lifetime or independent magnetic volume.\n\nConditions: Bind specimen, preparation pressure/temperature, ambient observation, operational onset/magnetic criterion and warming/storage history.\n\nVerification scope: Selected author-v1 Fig2/S2/S5/S6 and protocol text revisited; final SI comparison and independent scientific acceptance remain open.\n\n### scwiki-e10-claim-experimental-criteria-1\n\nDeng and colleagues' 2026 paper defines its quoted transition temperatures as resistive onsets using the temperature derivative. Author Figure 2 compares five quench experiments: S1 at 26.0 GPa/77 K retained 139 K; S1 at 28.4 GPa/4.2 K retained 147 K; S2 at 10.1 GPa/4.2 K retained 147 K; S3 at 10.9 GPa/4.2 K retained 149 K on warming and 148 K on cooling; S4 at 18.9 GPa/4.2 K retained 151 K on warming and 150 K on cooling. These are ambient-pressure measurements after quenching, with broad transitions. The highest onset is not a measured 151 K zero-resistance threshold. Multiple runs from this group are not independent laboratory replication.\n\nEvidence: experiment. Sources: source-14d1e9e0097f7ffb.\n\nSource relationship: direct-support. Source-specific preparation and measurement conditions; no transfer of one specimen's magnetic or retention evidence to another.\n\nConditions: Bind specimen, preparation pressure/temperature, ambient observation, operational onset/magnetic criterion and warming/storage history.\n\nVerification scope: Selected author-v1 Fig2/S2/S5/S6 and protocol text revisited; final SI comparison and independent scientific acceptance remain open.\n\n### scwiki-e10-claim-experimental-criteria-2\n\nMagnetization was measured on retrieved S2 after its 10.1 GPa/4.2 K preparation and subsequent handling. Its magnetic transition was near 140 K in a 10 Oe field; the approximately 78% estimate applies at 70 K. It must not be transferred to S4 at 151 K. Author Figure S6 multiplies the post-quench curve by ten for display; its specimen photograph is approximately 104 by 66 micrometres. Comparing plotted amplitudes without the scale correction would give a misleading fraction.\n\nEvidence: experiment. Sources: source-14d1e9e0097f7ffb.\n\nSource relationship: direct-support. Source-specific preparation and measurement conditions; no transfer of one specimen's magnetic or retention evidence to another.\n\nConditions: Bind specimen, preparation pressure/temperature, ambient observation, operational onset/magnetic criterion and warming/storage history.\n\nVerification scope: Selected author-v1 Fig2/S2/S5/S6 and protocol text revisited; final SI comparison and independent scientific acceptance remain open.\n\n### scwiki-e10-claim-experimental-criteria-3\n\nThe stability experiment used S3, initially near 149 K: storage at 77 K was interrupted by transport measurements after 9 hours and 1, 2 and 3 days, with warming to 160 or 170 K. The reported slight decrease therefore belongs to this combined storage-and-cycling path, not a calibrated isothermal decay curve. A change in onset temperature is not itself a measured transformed volume fraction. A separate S2 cycle to 293 K lowered its onset from about 147 K to 143 K. Cold-storage survival does not establish a room-temperature shelf life for the 151 K specimen. In S5 after a 29.7 GPa/4.2 K quench, a broad warming anomaly extended to about 172 K, disappeared on subsequent cooling after a 180–193 K excursion, and was not reproduced. This entry records 172 K as an unassigned anomaly, with no searchable superconducting transition temperature.\n\nEvidence: experiment. Sources: source-14d1e9e0097f7ffb.\n\nSource relationship: mixed-source-and-local-derivation. Selected author-v1 methods and figures. Source observations are separated from the editorial inference that cycling and onset shifts cannot identify a single isothermal decay or transformed fraction.\n\nConditions: Bind specimen, preparation pressure/temperature, ambient observation, operational onset/magnetic criterion and warming/storage history.\n\nVerification scope: Selected author-v1 Fig2/S2/S5/S6 and protocol text revisited; final SI comparison and independent scientific acceptance remain open.\n\n### scwiki-e10-claim-experimental-criteria-4\n\nThe transport methods use van der Pauw contacts, a solid cubic-boron-nitride pressure medium and room-temperature ruby-fluorescence/diamond-Raman pressure calibration. Screws were released while cold. These details should accompany the preparation path; a generic label such as hydrostatic pressure is insufficient for the actual stress environment. The checked methods describe cold screw release without a quantitative release-rate value. The new preparation records therefore retain an unknown rate, separately from the ambient measurement pressure. For S1 experiment 1, Figure 2F reports 26.0 GPa while the introduction says 26.3 GPa; the record follows the figure and flags the unresolved difference rather than treating it as a measured uncertainty interval.\n\nEvidence: experiment. Sources: source-14d1e9e0097f7ffb.\n\nSource relationship: direct-support. Source-specific preparation and measurement conditions; no transfer of one specimen's magnetic or retention evidence to another.\n\nConditions: Bind specimen, preparation pressure/temperature, ambient observation, operational onset/magnetic criterion and warming/storage history.\n\nVerification scope: Selected author-v1 Fig2/S2/S5/S6 and protocol text revisited; final SI comparison and independent scientific acceptance remain open.\n\n### scwiki-e10-claim-limits-and-disputes-1\n\nThe reported tetragonal structure persists in diffraction measurements up to 15 GPa, while recovered peaks broaden and lattice parameters change slightly. Those observations do not establish identical microscopic states before and after quenching. Calculated phonon stability in the tested model and a possible electronic Lifshitz feature are candidate explanations, not a measurement of the pairing cause or proof of global thermodynamic stability. No independent replication has been verified in this review; that is a review limitation, not proof that none exists.\n\nEvidence: experiment. Sources: source-14d1e9e0097f7ffb.\n\nSource relationship: context-for-editorial-analysis. Editorial distinction between preparation, observation, sample identity and the limits of inference; not a single-source experimental conclusion.\n\nConditions: Bind specimen, preparation pressure/temperature, ambient observation, operational onset/magnetic criterion and warming/storage history.\n\nVerification scope: Selected author-v1 Fig2/S2/S5/S6 and protocol text revisited; final SI comparison and independent scientific acceptance remain open.\n\n### scwiki-e10-claim-limits-and-disputes-2\n\nThe journal article was published online on 9 March 2026; the checked author manuscript is arXiv v1 dated 12 March. Selected final PMC text was compared with author transport/magnetization methods and Figures 2, S2, S5 and S6. The final supplementary file could not be newly accessed during this follow-up; the author version is retained without claiming equivalence. Final supplementary-file comparison, raw-data reanalysis and complete scientific acceptance remain open. The inherited bibliography names X. Deng; the published first author is Liangzi Deng. Gao and Schilling remain abstract-level checks here. Kramers supplies a simplified classical model, not a validated mechanism for this material.\n\nEvidence: experiment. Sources: source-6d09a24a26a15997, source-d95477ebe515f481, source-14d1e9e0097f7ffb, source-26d03be9d47579df.\n\nSource relationship: context-for-editorial-analysis. Editorial distinction between preparation, observation, sample identity and the limits of inference; not a single-source experimental conclusion.\n\nConditions: Bind specimen, preparation pressure/temperature, ambient observation, operational onset/magnetic criterion and warming/storage history.\n\nVerification scope: Selected author-v1 Fig2/S2/S5/S6 and protocol text revisited; final SI comparison and independent scientific acceptance remain open.\n\n### scwiki-e10-claim-discovery-implications-1\n\nA useful follow-up tracks the same specimen before loading, under load and after release, combining transport, magnetism, composition and structure. Publish the complete pressure–temperature–time path, repeat cycles and failure cases, and measure retention versus temperature and time. Search records should distinguish preparation pressure from observation pressure and retain onset, zero-resistance, magnetic and unassigned-anomaly criteria separately. Applying this strategy to a different material is a proposal requiring new evidence; success in Hg-1223 does not guarantee a retained hydride or nickelate phase.\n\nEvidence: theory. Sources: source-14d1e9e0097f7ffb, source-26d03be9d47579df.\n\nSource relationship: context-for-editorial-analysis. Editorial distinction between preparation, observation, sample identity and the limits of inference; not a single-source experimental conclusion.\n\nConditions: Bind specimen, preparation pressure/temperature, ambient observation, operational onset/magnetic criterion and warming/storage history.\n\nVerification scope: Selected author-v1 Fig2/S2/S5/S6 and protocol text revisited; final SI comparison and independent scientific acceptance remain open.\n\n## Revision and review\n\nArticle ID: scwiki-e10. Revision: 067153aa5412e87a7019. Updated: 2026-10-20.\n\nReview scope: Selected final Hg1223 text and author figures; cgs disk estimate and illustrative kinetic integration; historical publisher abstracts and selected Kramers original. Follow-up of author-v1 preparation records and interrupted thermal history; original numerical observations retained. No new material-specific lifetime fit.\n\n- Complete scientific acceptance, raw-data and final supplementary comparison remain open.\n- Independent replication has not been verified in this review.\n- Gao and Schilling are publisher-abstract checks, not full primary methods audits.\n- No material-specific retention barrier, lifetime or universal pressure-quench mechanism is calculated.\n- Figure2F gives26.0GPa for S1experiment1, whereas the introduction says26.3GPa; values are not silently reconciled or interpreted as an uncertainty range.\n\nSource: [E_tuning_parameters/E10_pressure_quenching.md](https://github.com/JackZH26/jzis-superconductivity/blob/0a7c9d6696804ec26aa12f8eed68b55c9b3c0fcf/E_tuning_parameters/E10_pressure_quenching.md), commit 0a7c9d6696804ec26aa12f8eed68b55c9b3c0fcf, SHA-256 9012460f69dd462da21bd90202c820c8c26289398853363b7a09ba7f2f67260b.\n","wordCount":1178}}