Ideally, we would like to build the Q I phase using an unbiased method, i.e. via self-assembly. Since self-assembly is a slow process, it is not feasible via all-atom MD simulation. We thus used the CG model to speed up the process. However, even using a CG model relatively well-matched to the atomistic model in bilayer simulations, we were unable to fold from randomized initial configurations to the Q I structure at concentrations of interest, instead obtaining a structure with hydrophobic and hydrophilic groups forming two non-intersecting channels. Several factors could be responsi-ble for the failure of the CG model to form the Q I structure. To begin, our force fields, particularly the CG version, may not be accurate enough to simulate the phase behavior. Even if the force field is relatively accurate, we may not be looking in the right region of composition and temperature space, as experimental and even relatively accurate atomistic models may have slightly different phase diagrams. The margin of error is particularly low for the Q phases which are stable only within a narrow phase space. Furthermore, due to the three-dimensional periodicity of the Q I phase, the periodicity of the simulation cell must perfectly accommodate the liquid crystal periodicity. This is especially the case when we can only simulate the system repeatedly out to long timescales with a single atomistic unit cell. If the periodicity of the simulation cell is not the same as that of the Q I phase, it will hinder the creation of the cubic structure because we are forcing the system into an unnatural periodicity.