Round 1
One saved weekly assessment of The eukaryotic host lineage arose within Asgard archaea., kept as it was published. It is an estimate from three models reading the evidence, not proof the hypothesis holds, and it did not set any price.
- Published
- Oct 19, 2026 06:57 PM EDT
- Estimate
- 66%
- Range the models covered
- 50–85%
- Confident binary
- No unanimous verdict this round.
- Methodology
- panel-v9
- Round hash
0b8a1e7456839d4303f41a2aa6cca7a9aac07476c08c64cafc347b7ec153af82
The hash commits to this round's recorded bytes. It does not prove the wording is sound or that the science is right.
openai/gpt-6.1-sol
I interpret crown nesting strictly, excluding sister-to-all-Asgard placements. Expanded primary genomic evidence favors nesting, but neither independent exhaustive placement tests meeting the specified thresholds nor robustness across supported rootings were verified. The retrieved publisher record supports the hypothesis, but does not establish the required independent reproduction or resolve marker, contamination and model sensitivity.
What would change this view: Independent datasets satisfying the exhaustive placement, rooting, bootstrap and AU requirements would resolve whether crown nesting survives systematic error.
anthropic/claude-sonnet-5.5
Recent work (Eme 2023, Zhang 2025) places eukaryotes inside Asgard, probably within the crown, so the substantive claim is plausible. The resolution criterion is much stricter. It needs independent datasets, AU tests across every backbone edge, and robustness to taxon removal. Published analyses are not independent (they overlap in genomes), and the rooting and model-adequacy debate (Williams, Spang) persists. Zhang's placement outside Heimdallarchaeia adds ambiguity about whether the node is inside the crown. I did not run a live search, so I could not check for newer work.
What would change this view: Two independent, peer-reviewed analyses using non-overlapping genomes, with exhaustive edge-wise constrained placement and AU p<0.01 against all non-nested positions, would move me to YES; a robust deeper placement would move me to NO.
No sources recorded for this answer.
x-ai/grok-4.7
Within-Asgard host ancestry is a leading but unsettled reading. Liu et al. 2021 recover either within-Asgard or deeper archaeal placements depending on taxa and markers; Zhang et al. 2025 support Heimdall-sister in some matrices (BS>95) but also a TACK/Njord–Korarchaeota placement. The required every-edge site-heterogeneous AU tests from two independent peer-reviewed datasets are not reported, so neither YES nor NO threshold is met.
What would change this view: Two independent peer-reviewed datasets completing every-edge AU tests that reject all non-nested, or all nested, placements at p<0.01.
Round 1: score 0.66
OpenAI estimated 0.85. I interpret crown nesting strictly, excluding sister-to-all-Asgard placements. Expanded primary genomic evidence favors nesting, but neither independent exhaustive placement tests meeting the specified thresholds nor… Anthropic estimated 0.50. Recent work (Eme 2023, Zhang 2025) places eukaryotes inside Asgard, probably within the crown, so the substantive claim is plausible. The resolution criterion is much stricter. It needs independent datasets, AU tests… xAI estimated 0.62. Within-Asgard host ancestry is a leading but unsettled reading. Liu et al. 2021 recover either within-Asgard or deeper archaeal placements depending on taxa and markers; Zhang et al. 2025 support Heimdall-sister in some… The panel disagreed by 0.35, so read this average as soft. The three models did not return a unanimous confident binary, so the market is not decided.
No audit bundle is recorded for this round. A bundle from another round is not substituted for it.