Evaluate provenance and substance independently.
Solo Provenance
Supported · Unresolved / controlled review required · Fails
Asset Substance / Strategic Value
Strong review-worthy substance · Unresolved / specialist diligence required · Weak / fails strategic-value thesis
What the combinations actually mean.
The current two-axis test is the result of a visible narrowing process.
Earlier strict standard
The May 6 article proposed three conditions: a whole-path solo trajectory, reconstructable documentation and market value in the billions. That formulation was intentionally strict, but it was broader than the current MZN claim boundary.
Current bounded model
By May 23–25, the public thesis had separated two independent questions: can the eligible Phase 2 formation path be reconstructed as one-human, and does the resulting asset stack survive serious substance/value diligence?
A portfolio can be valuable and fail the OPU provenance test. A formation path can be genuinely solo and fail the strategic-value test. The current matrix preserves both negative outcomes.
The Hard Questions Behind a One-Person AI-Native Company is the closest public precursor to this evaluation page: it explicitly separates Phase 1, Phase 2 and Phase 3, states that self-assessment is not the verdict, and makes insufficient value or failed solo provenance defeat conditions.
Review the source trailA rigorous review needs more than “believe” or “dismiss.”
Not proven publicly
The public layer is insufficient for the requested conclusion.
Requires restricted diligence
The claim may be reviewable, but the needed material belongs in controlled access.
Phase confusion
The objection mixes Phase 1 team execution, Phase 2 solo formation or Phase 3 future work.
Provenance uncertainty
The formation trail is incomplete or contradictory.
Technical / novelty uncertainty
Specialist review has not yet resolved depth, novelty, reproducibility or prior art.
Structural refutation
A load-bearing claim is contradicted by material evidence. The classification must change.
Reviewer certainty should be proportional to reviewer access.
Public review can test definitions, routes, selected artifacts and contradictions. Controlled diligence can test deeper provenance and confidential technical material. Neither layer should pretend to be the other.