There is much debate here and on Twitter over whether LK-99 has shown flux pinning in any of the samples created so far, and even whether such an effect would be expected for a 1D superconductor. This market resolves YES if such an effect is conclusively demonstrated for any LK-99 sample and NO if the effect has not been demonstrated by market close. Whether or not LK-99 is actually a room temperature superconductor has no bearing on this market.
I'm not an physicist or domain expert so will resolve this maket based on my understanding of scientific consensus on this issue.
Related questions
@1111111 If the original group's samples are conclusively demonstrated to not be flux pinning either by the group itself or an outside group's investigation (on lent materials to), I think the market could resolve NO more quickly
@Charlie I think for this to resolve YES whatever sample demonstrates flux pinning must be closely related to either the original team's current samples or the procedures described in the original arXiv papers. Differences that stem from randomness or under-specification in the original recipe would be fine.
If the original team's current samples (e.g., the sample in the NYT video) came from a notably improved procedure, intentionally different from the papers on arXiv, and if such a sample conclusively demonstrated flux pinning, this question would resolve YES even if the currently published recipe is technically different.
Similarly, supposing such a hypothetical, unpublished "better procedure" did produce the original teams samples (probably not, but who knows), if another team is found to have reverse engineered it to produce a flux pinned sample, that would be fine.
Otherwise, no significant difference in recipe allowed.