OPEN, the site's label, which the site describes as a question that no finite computation can settle. The derived standing departs from the label: it is solved and disproved, by the claim accepted on its claim page (Kruer Kohlmeyer, 2026): there is a permutation of $\mathbb{N}$ with no indices $i<j<k<l$ or $i>j>k>l$ whose values form an arithmetic progression, so not every permutation contains a monotone four-term progression. The status-defining source is a Lean proof certified by the bounty site Conjectures.io (record e73b95f7-1d1b-42b5-a442-c07077741d73), whose Lean kernel verified the proof, whose review approved it on 11 September 2026 and which certified it and paid the bounty on 14 September 2026. The statement the site attacked is the formal-conjectures statement Erdos196.erdos_196, at the catalog commit the site pinned, with its open answer fixed to true: every bijection $f:\mathbb{N}\to\mathbb{N}$ has four strictly increasing indices whose images form a four-term arithmetic progression in one of the two directions. This is the wording above clause for clause: a bijection of $\mathbb{N}$ is a permutation; the decreasing-index case $i>j>k>l$ is the increasing-index case read backward, which the reversed direction covers; four distinct indices under a bijection exclude the constant progression; and Lean's $\mathbb{N}$ containing $0$ is immaterial, since shifting indices and values by one carries permutations to permutations and preserves progressions in both directions. The accepted file proves the negation of that statement from an explicit bijection with no monotone four-term progression. The pinned catalog revision is not public, so the statement was compared with the catalog's default-branch file, and agreement at the pin rests on the bounty site's statement-hash check. The site's review compared the proof with the earlier literature, found that under its policy unresolved provenance questions alone do not deny the reward, and called its approval a decision on eligibility for the bounty, not a guarantee of originality. A second construction answering the question no is Ho's arXiv preprint of 11 September 2026, with a Lean formalization by its author, recorded as a pending claim on its claim page (Ho, 2026); the bounty site's verification of 9 September 2026 precedes it, while the first public postings found of the Kruer–Kohlmeyer proof are of 14 September 2026, and the two constructions share their binary order and nested-prefix shape. The accepting body is the bounty site alone: the erdosproblems.com page keeps the label OPEN and lists the proof claim of Kruer and Kohlmeyer, submitted on 2026-09-14 with the same Lean file, on which the curator has not commented (its three forum comments, by other users, post a reproduction of the construction and point to Ho's preprint), and the formal-conjectures statement is tagged open on the catalog's default branch (2026-10-07); no refereed publication exists. The Lean files were not built by this corpus, so the kernel check is the bounty site's. The classical results stand: [DEGS77] shows that a monotone three-term progression must exist and that a monotone five-term progression need not.