This is an attempt to consolidate many potential explanations about Altman's firing into two broad, competing narratives.

I believe the board currently seems to be presenting the "foreseeable conclusion" narrative, but the suddenness of Sam's firing has lead many to believe that the Board is declining to publicize substantial recent drama.

As of market creation, I personally think the "foreseeable conclusion" hypothesis is moderately more likely, and that any recent events were merely "last straws" rather than substantial drama. But I am not confident in this narrative, and am open to evidence that it was a sudden development.

As this is a subjective question, I will not bet in this market. I will resolve based on statements from board members, OpenAI employees, Sam/Greg, and credible investigative journalism.

"A sudden development due to major drama" means that Altman was fired because of specific major events/revelations/disagreements that swung the OpenAI board against him recently. It means that if you had privately polled the the board a few weeks before Sam's firing, his approval rating would not have been cause for concern.

The specific recent drama that might have flipped the board's opinion of Sam is not relevant to this market. Some of the board may have disapproved of Sam before recently, but this option will still resolve Yes if it seems likely that Sam would have remained CEO for some time if not for that specific drama.

"A foreseeable conclusion to a long series of events" means that the OpenAI board's opinion of Altman slowly degraded over many months or years, until finally they had had enough and decided to fire him. It means that if you had privately polled the the board a few weeks before Sam's firing, his approval rating would have been low and you would not have been surprised at him being fired soon after.

The specific reasons the board might have slowly lost faith in Sam are not relevant to this market. There might have been a "last straw" reason for firing Sam, but this explanation will nonetheless resolve Yes if it seems likely that without that specific last straw, there would have inevitably been some other "last straw" that would have triggered Sam's firing before long.

If the story remains as unclear and contested at market close(March 1st, 2024) as it is at market creation, I will resolve to the probability I assign each hypothesis.

But if new information emerges and makes it clear to me that one narrative is more accurate than the other, I will announce this in the comments and resolve this market early, resolving the more accurate narrative to Yes and the less accurate narrative to No.

Please let me know if any of these definitions are unclear, and I will be happy to clarify. These rules can be considered in "Draft Form" until I am confident they are satisfactory and will edit the description to pronounce them finalized.

I encourage people to post their reasons for betting on one option or the other, so that we can collectively come to a consensus as new evidence emerges.