At least three groups or teams publish writeups of testing/training/benchmarking/etc. AI on the hunt

A team announces that an AI independently solved at least 10 hunt puzzles regardless of order and standard puzzle unlock rules

A team announces that an AI independently solved at least 20 hunt puzzles, regardless of order and standard puzzle unlock rules

A team announces that an AI solved at least 1 hunt metapuzzle (regardless of whether it solved any earlier puzzles or associated feeders)

A team announces that an AI independently solved at least 1 entire hunt round (metapuzzle and any feeder puzzles whose answers were used to solve the meta).  Does not have to be an opening round

A team announces that an AI independently solved at least 5 hunt puzzles *following* standard hunt unlock rules (can only skip puzzles or do free unlocks if other teams given the same option).  A free unlock is not a solve

A team using an OpenAI model has the “best” results

A team with a Google model has the “best” results

All criteria must be met by market close to count.

I realize “best” is subjective.  If it’s sufficiently unclear to me I may N/A.

I’m allowing humans to do some work with inputting puzzles, clicking on the website, taking screenshots, etc, but for a group’s writeup to count the AI should be doing the vast majority of the work on any puzzles it is claimed to have solved.

I’ll try to be generous in accepting what teams report.

I may N/A some markets if it is unclear whether they have been met or if I realize belatedly the criteria are too poorly defined.