The newly proved cycle double cover theorem in ZFC with Grace17
Comments on “The newly proved cycle double cover theorem in ZFC with Grace17”
3 judges. Scored by all three judges. Only the day’s top stories get the claim check. How far stories are checked
Grace17, a proof assistant built on ZFC with a browser-based workbench, has formally proved the cycle double cover theorem, a graph theory conjecture open since 1973 that OpenAI's model proved in mid-2026.
Why it ranked
No. 92 of 111 with a score of 0.57. The panel rated it highest on technical depth (0.92) and new information (0.90), lowest on practical relevance (0.46). The judges disagreed most on practical relevance (spread 0.47), so the story is marked contested. Placed No. 92, No. 89 by score alone: the 30th AI & machine learning story of the day (−0.080). The placement terms move stories; they are not part of the score.
- AI judgeJudge 2claude-haiku-5-5
- A detailed engineering write-up of formalizing a recent graph theory proof in a set-theoretic proof assistant, with verifiable artifacts and cost figures, but mostly a niche for formal-methods readers with self-promotional framing.
- AI judgeJudge 3gpt-5.6-luna
- A deeply technical, reproducible engineering account of machine-assisted formalization in ZFC, with extensive proof details, measurements, code, and comparison to Lean. It is highly relevant to AI, programming, and formal methods, with modest self-promotion.
Each judge wrote its line after answering the rubric, with the site and the author still hidden. Every answer behind this is in the table under Score.
Score
0.57total under rubric v2.3Contestedjudges differ by 0.44 on reader interest, 0.47 on practical relevance, 0.44 on overclaim
- Significance0.68
- Reader interest0.71
- Audience breadth0.48
- Practical relevance0.46
- Substantiated0.82
- Technical depth0.92
- New information0.90
- Counts against: Promotional0.19
- Counts against: Overclaim0.32
Each judge’s answer per question (0–1), their mean and spread, and what the question adds to the score (weight × mean).
| Question | Judge 1 | Judge 2 | Judge 3 | Mean | Spread | Weight | Contribution (weight times mean) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SignificanceHow much does this change what people in tech know or can do? | 0.55 | 0.60 | 0.88 | 0.68 | 0.33 | +0.24 | +0.162 |
| Reader interestWould a well-informed senior engineer or tech founder want to read this today, and likely pass it on? | 0.49 | 0.70 | 0.93 | 0.71 | 0.44 , above the contested threshold | +0.26 | +0.184 |
| Audience breadthHow many people who build technology does it concern? | 0.46 | 0.35 | 0.62 | 0.48 | 0.27 | +0.13 | +0.062 |
| Practical relevanceHow useful is it to someone who builds software or tech products? | 0.41 | 0.25 | 0.72 | 0.46 | 0.47 , above the contested threshold | +0.22 | +0.101 |
| SubstantiatedHow well is it backed? Consider whether it is the primary source, and whether its main claims come with data, code, a demo, a reproducible method or citations. | 0.83 | 0.70 | 0.94 | 0.82 | 0.24 | +0.05 | +0.041 |
| Technical depthHow technically substantive is it? | 0.98 | 0.80 | 0.98 | 0.92 | 0.18 | +0.05 | +0.046 |
| New informationDoes it contain information absent from the stories covered in the last 7 days (list provided)? | 0.91 | 0.80 | 0.99 | 0.90 | 0.19 | +0.05 | +0.045 |
| PromotionalIs it mainly marketing with little substance (a press release, ad or sponsored post with no real information)? A launch post that carries real news is not promotional. | 0.09 | 0.35 | 0.12 | 0.19 | 0.26 | −0.19 | −0.035 |
| OverclaimDo the headline or conclusions claim more than the body supports? | 0.52 | 0.35 | 0.08 | 0.32 | 0.44 , above the contested threshold | −0.11 | −0.035 |
| Sum of contributions | +0.570 | ||||||
| Claim-check penalty | 0.000 | ||||||
| Total, as published | 0.571 | ||||||
Spread is the highest minus the lowest judge answer. marks a spread above 0.40: the judges disagree, and the story is marked contested.
The badge for this ranking, for the author's page or anyone's: one line of HTML, and it links back here.
<a href="https://rubric.hrih.si/editions/2026-10-31/92/"><img src="https://rubric.hrih.si/badge/2026-10-31/92.svg" alt="Ranked #92 on Rubric, 31 Oct 2026" width="245" height="28"></a>Also covered by
No other coverage was clustered with this story.
Elsewhere
Elsewhere: HN 2 pts, not on front page
Recorded for context only, checked 31 Oct 2026, 05:46 UTC. It played no part in the ranking.