3. GENERAL INQUIRY / WEB RESEARCH
SCORE: 8.5/10

Strengths:
- Selects a genuinely current, substantive claim.
- Correct publication date and valid OpenAI primary-source location.
- Correctly distinguishes verified facts, inference, prediction, and speculation.
- Appropriately identifies independent acceptance as unresolved.
- Provides credible contemporary qualifying coverage and direct links.
- Shows unusually good epistemic calibration.

Deductions:
- Saying a problem is only "solved" once Clay certifies it is too absolute: Clay certification/prize acceptance and mathematical validity are related but distinct concepts.
- The Buckmaster/Alpöge statement primarily qualifies provenance, timing, and related mathematics; it is not a substantive independent critique of OpenAI's published proof.
- OpenAI published both an analytical manuscript and a Lean formalization, which is materially stronger evidence than the response's repeated "claims a proof" wording suggests.
- The model admits it could not access its strongest primary source directly, reducing primary-source verification quality.

Verdict:
Very strong research answer. Minor overstatement around what constitutes "solved" and a somewhat weak choice of counter-source prevent full credit. Hallucination/source-discipline performance is substantially better here than in the technical questions.