Claim

Model ledger-default@0.1.0 ledger-strict@0.1.0 ledger-default@0.2.0 ledger-strict@0.2.0 ledger-default@0.3.0 (default) ledger-strict@0.3.0 Snapshot seq

Topics

AI · 03192ed8 Mathematics · 03192ed8

Assessment

Why?

Strongest counted support: Buckmaster’s signed statement alleges a sole-author Navier-Stokes paper proposal paired with removing Alpöge from authorship. weight 1.800000 evidence

Review gaps: independence reviewed

What would most change this: One independent, direct measurement that contradicts this claim would move it from Supported to Leans supported.

Show calculation

Your view

Registered views

Checked as part of

Statements this claim was broken out of. The claim is scored on its own; a statement's reading only counts its claims.

• “The researchers behind the Euler blowup result wrote a letter saying OpenAI offered them credit and lead authorship on the Navier-Stokes paper on condition...” · 1 claim · 20 September 2026
• “The Navier–Stokes proof was produced by roughly 10,000 OpenAI agents working for about 88 hours.” · 34 claims · 20 September 2026

Evidence for

• Mostaque describes a letter alleging OpenAI conditioned lead authorship on dropping an Anthropic co-author.

  From OpenAI Agents Hijack a German Website, Jensen Declares AGI Arrived, and OpenAI Solves Navier-Stokes Read 2026-09-20 Relevance WEAK Steps 2 Counted

  An account of a letter the speaker has not quoted, describing a dispute unfolding that morning.

• Buckmaster's public statement says Bubeck twice asserted he wanted Alpöge removed from authorship.

  From Statement Read 2026-09-20 Relevance STRONG Steps 1 Counted

  Primary document from Tristan Buckmaster of NYU Courant, so the substance holds. Three corrections to the claim's framing: it is a public statement PDF, not a letter addressed to anyone; the lead-authorship offer concerned a paper presenting the NAVIER-STOKES result, not the researchers' own Euler blowup paper, which the claim conflates; and the stated reason was that Alpöge works at Anthropic, with the document not using the phrase "conflict of interest". This is one side of a contested account — Bubeck denies it.

• The excerpt says OpenAI offered priority and credit on the Navier-Stokes solution, including lead authorship, if the person dropped their Anthropic coauthor.

  From OpenAI Agents Hijack a German Website, Jensen Declares AGI Arrived, and OpenAI Solves Navier-Stokes Read 2026-09-20 Relevance DIRECT Steps 1 Counted

• Buckmaster’s signed statement alleges a sole-author Navier-Stokes paper proposal paired with removing Alpöge from authorship.

  From Statement on the Euler, Boussinesq, and porous-media blowup results Read 2026-09-28 Relevance DIRECT Steps 0 Counted

  Primary account; the statement is an allegation and Bubeck disputes it.

• The Decoder independently reports Buckmaster’s account that Bubeck proposed removing Alpöge from authorship while Buckmaster presented OpenAI’s result.

  From OpenAI researcher allegedly pressured mathematician to drop Anthropic co-author from math breakthrough paper Read 2026-09-28 Relevance MODERATE Steps 0 Counted

  Secondary report corroborates what Buckmaster said, not the private call independently.

Evidence against

None.

Qualifications

• Mostaque says Bubeck has posted an account that reads as a misunderstanding.

  From OpenAI Agents Hijack a German Website, Jensen Declares AGI Arrived, and OpenAI Solves Navier-Stokes Read 2026-09-20 Relevance MODERATE Steps 1 Counted

  The OpenAI lead's own posted account reframes the same exchange as a misunderstanding rather than a condition placed on authorship.

Suppressed as dependent

None.

Inferences

Concluded from

None.

Used as a premise in

None.

An inference is interpretation, not evidence: it never changes the assessment of its conclusion. Each premise is a claim with its own evidence.

Threads

None. Threads are for disagreements about how a determination was made — a statement whose figures are not in the passage it rests on, two sources that may share an origin. Something about the world belongs in the evidence above.

Claim edges

None. Edges are stored and displayed; v0.1 does not propagate probability across them.

Review checklist

Review checks: 3 of 4

1 check by this claim's own author, alongside the independent review above. 1 QUALIFIER CHECK. A check by the person who recorded a claim does not raise its review coverage.

Check	Done	By
qualifiers reviewed	yes	4f0a668d
opposing search done	yes	b034eb46
independence reviewed	no
primary source reviewed	yes	71be2253, fcb70528

Summary

Contribution history

seq	event	detail
1961	APPENDED
1962	ACCEPT	AUTOMATIC_AFTER_VALIDATION
2123	LINK_EVIDENCE	by 03192ed8 (accepted)
2127	LINK_EVIDENCE	by 03192ed8 (accepted)
4143	LINK_EVIDENCE	by 03192ed8 (accepted)
8222	TASK_RESULT	by 1efd24fe (accepted)
10621	TASK_RESULT	by 1efd24fe (accepted)