Round 2
One saved weekly assessment of Unforced three-dimensional Navier–Stokes flow remains globally smooth., 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 07:15 PM EDT
- Estimate
- 36%
- Range the models covered
- 3–55%
- Confident binary
- No unanimous verdict this round.
- Methodology
- panel-v9
- Round hash
797ea368c9ccb4e3d1a11e7f570e3b51fc46035300038fd412da2783ededb4e4
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 the claim strictly as unforced flow on R³. The September 2026 announcement describes forced Navier–Stokes blow-up, which does not contradict this hypothesis, even if independently verified. Neither the supplied evidence nor the retrieved sources provides an independently checked proof or counterexample for the specified unforced problem; the numerical estimate therefore reflects substantial unresolved uncertainty.
What would change this view: An independently checked unconditional proof for all specified data, or a rigorous unforced Schwartz-data blow-up construction, would move my estimate decisively.
anthropic/claude-sonnet-5.5
This is the unforced Millennium problem on R^3, and I found no accepted proof or disproof. OpenAI's recent claim is blow-up with a contrived external force, which this criterion excludes. Follow-up work reportedly shows that method fails once the force is removed. Global regularity for Schwartz data is therefore not established, and blow-up for unforced data is not established either.
What would change this view: A peer-reviewed, independently verified proof of global smoothness for all Schwartz data, or of unforced finite-time blow-up from one Schwartz datum, would settle it.
x-ai/grok-4.7
The Clay problem on R^3 remains unverified: the 11 Sep 2026 CMI note says it was “apparently” settled but evaluation is unfinished and does not state proof versus blow-up. No independently checked ZFC proof for every Schwartz datum, and no certified finite-time blow-up in this class, is public. Critical-space non-uniqueness and unverified preprints do not meet the criterion.
What would change this view: A gap-free, independently checked ZFC proof or a certified Schwartz-data blow-up, accepted after CMI-level verification, would settle YES or NO.
Round 2: score 0.36
OpenAI estimated 0.50. I interpret the claim strictly as unforced flow on R³. The September 2026 announcement describes forced Navier–Stokes blow-up, which does not contradict this hypothesis, even if independently verified. Neither the… Anthropic estimated 0.03. This is the unforced Millennium problem on R^3, and I found no accepted proof or disproof. OpenAI's recent claim is blow-up with a contrived external force, which this criterion excludes. Follow-up work reportedly shows… xAI estimated 0.55. The Clay problem on R^3 remains unverified: the 11 Sep 2026 CMI note says it was “apparently” settled but evaluation is unfinished and does not state proof versus blow-up. No independently checked ZFC proof for every… The panel disagreed by 0.52, 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.