This is a falsification test of the atlas's method. If a public-data index recovers the same high-risk minerals a well-resourced agency identifies from paid data, the public-data approach is validated. It does — with an honest caveat about scope, below.
The atlas's supply-risk ranking — IEA high-risk minerals highlighted
Convergent, with an honest scope difference. Of the IEA's eight high-risk minerals, six exist as discrete atlas materials (yttrium and tellurium sit inside the rare-earth basket and copper by-products), and most of those rank in the atlas's upper third — gallium, magnets, graphite, germanium and tungsten cluster high, cobalt just below. Two independent methods, converging on the same by-product and built-capability metals. Where they differ is scope, not contradiction: the atlas ranks a broader 32-material EU-CRM set and weights governance and recyclability, so it also elevates beryllium, niobium, lithium and magnesium — materials the IEA's energy-transition lens does not foreground. The agreement is on the specifics; the difference is a wider aperture.
Atlas index: live from this site's supply-risk model (USGS/BGS production shares → HHI, governance via World Bank WGI, substitutability and recycling from EU CRM 2023). IEA high-risk list: IEA GCMO 2026 risk-assessment section (supply concentration + alternative supply routes + strategic importance), © IEA CC BY 4.0. Note the atlas's exact weights differ from the IEA's (which are not published), so this tests rank agreement, not identical scores — see risk methods.