Greetings Community and greetings @JacobTaylor-CIG . TLDR: For those that don't want to read that much, I've made a video for you: https://youtu.be/X5iJQMiZUuI . For all the others: happy reading below. In the Citizen Con video we've been updated, that CIG intends to introduce the quality of gathered materials: https://youtu.be/AmwKD_flLmw?t=466 However, there is a scientific problem, if someone were to apply the material quality mechanic onto elements and from that derive any quality information of the final product. Before we begin, let's clarify the difference between the terms element, substance and material: "A chemical element is a substance that is made up of only one type of atom." ( https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_element ) All substances found on the Periodic Table of Elements, that i have attached to this post for your convenience, fall into this category. While a substance is the material something is made of, and it basically can be anything. As an example, let's examine iron: Ores, are the oxidized and dirty form of metals, in which metallic elements like iron may be found in the ground. Even the purest of ore deposits remain below like 70% of iron. Of course this is nowhere near a usable concentration. This is where refineries come in: They reduce the ore (as in get the oxygen away from the iron), melt out non metallic impurities (i.e. in the form of slag) and also get rid of metallic impurities by chemical, electromagnetic or physical methods. The ONLY difference the quality of the initial iron ore makes, is how tedious the refining process is. While the purity of the gained iron, solely depends on the sophistication of the refinery and how much energy you are willing to put into the refining process, because, like i explained above, the iron ore is ALWAYS much dirtier, than you need the iron to be. To emphasise this point: if one thinks these refining processes would be very complicated and one could somehow RP wise explain why the quality of an ore would matter for the finished metal, consider this: Already for like 100 years, we are not only able to industrially differenciate between different elements in an ore. We are even more able to differenciate between different isotopes of the same element. You surely will have heard of enriched uranium (Uranium 235) and depleted uranium (Uranium 238)? (While the english term of "depleted" is misleading there, the word "downgraded" would be better.) In other words: separating different elements is easy compared to separating isotopes, and i doubt we have lost those abilities 900 years from now. Therefore, the two sentences i have underlined above stand. Generalizing this principle to all elements: The same principles are true for all elements, be they in solid, liquid or gaseous aggregate state. (I could go into the details of extracting or synthesizing gasses, but that would be boring for most people, so feel free to take my word for it.) The gathering and refining methods do differ per element, but the same two sentences hold true: The quality of the gathered raw element informs the effort to refine it and the sophistication of the refinery informs the quality of the resulting product. What is NOT covered by this argumentation: To make this clear: Everything that needs to be naturally grown, is NOT covered by this argumentation. ( While some things might grow naturally, but may be much purer produced artificially: i.e. diamonds (compressed carbon) or the wafers (as in silicium crystals, or as nature calls it "Sand") the CPUs of your computers are made of. Those artificially grown things then of course need very pure elemental materials to start with, in order to gain those levels of purity. ) Thank you for your considerations. With best regards, Clyde.