Ledger · 2026-09-05 · Materials Chemistry / HVAC Working Fluids

Ultra-Low-Corrosion LDAC Working Fluid via Formate-Ionic Liquid Blending

Rejected

This concept did not clear the framework. The reasoning is published in full below.

What the assessment found

Incumbent benchmark	40% Liquid Lithium Chloride (LiCl) Solution
Entry application	Commercial and mid-scale LDAC systems in pharmaceutical and food processing sectors
Measured advantage	0.146 gH2O/gsol vs 0.180 gH2O/gsol for 40% LiCl (0.81x performance regression)
Time to first revenue	10 months
Gross margin at parity	55.6%
Startup CapEx	$360,000
Payback from first sale	0.4 months
Capital productivity	76.8x
Regulatory risk	Moderate — qualification costs reported ($120,000 estimated)
Protectability	Not declared — no specific protectable contribution beyond the published baseline

Why it failed

• Voided by: Economics undisclosed, Negative control / sub-2x, Absence search missing, No defensible contribution declared
• Evidence rests on non-peer-reviewed sources
• Margin fails the operating-cost check
• Uncited safety claim
• Absence asserted, search unreported
• No protectable contribution declared

Assessment

The proposed fluid exhibits a performance regression (0.81x moisture absorption capacity vs 40% LiCl) on the primary buyer performance dimension. It also fails on unit margins (55.5% vs 70% required), startup CapEx ($360,000 vs $250,000 threshold), and lacks a structured Market Absence Ledger and defensibility mapping.

Also flagged

• Duplicate references inflating the evidence base
• Price parity asserted, not sourced
• runsheet_no_quantities

A rejection is not a claim that the science is wrong. It means the venture case did not survive: the comparator was not what the buyer actually buys, the comparison was not like-for-like, the advantage fell short of a step change, or the capital and time to first revenue were prohibitive.

---

Assessed 2026-09-05 against seven gates plus the voiding sub-tests. How the method works · Browse all concepts