---

Claim. For an integer $m\ge1$ let $\epsilon_m$ be the supremum of $\sum_i1/n_i$ over finite families of distinct moduli $m<n_1<\cdots<n_k$ admitting pairwise disjoint residue classes. With $L(m)=\exp(\sqrt{\log m\log\log m})$,

$$\epsilon_m=L(m)^{-1+o(1)},$$

the sharp estimate for the corrected Statement of Problem 1190. The draft, eight pages dated 30 April 2026 and labeled a draft, prints no author name; it is hosted on ULAM's research pages and was posted on the site's discussion thread on 2026-04-30 by Przemek Chojecki, who presents it as an unconditional proof by GPT-5.5 Pro that does not rely on the resolution of Problem 202 and uses recent results from sunflower and threshold theory. It first derives the sharp upper bound $f(N)\le NL(N)^{-1+o(1)}$ for the largest number of disjoint classes with distinct moduli at most $N$ by a spread-core argument built on the counting bounds of de la Bretèche, Ford and Vandehey, then transfers the estimate to $\epsilon_m$ by the partial-summation and truncation reduction. On the thread Nat Sothanaphan noted the same day that the draft thereby claims both the Problem 202 asymptotic and this consequence, the same results as Ho's manuscript, by a very similar route, and that a standard check had found a few minor issues. The community ledger of AI contributions records the draft as a candidate full solution. The claimant named here is the human who posted it, since the draft itself names no author.

This is the same statement as Ho's accepted claim, reached by a route the draft presents as independent of Ho's theorem; it says nothing about the second-order behavior of $\epsilon_m$.

Depends on. Nothing in this wiki: the draft's inputs are the published counting bounds of de la Bretèche, Ford and Vandehey and results from sunflower and threshold theory, which it imports from outside this wiki; this corpus has not certified that its route is independent of Ho's.

Standing. Claimed. This corpus has not reconstructed the draft's own Problem 202 argument or reviewed its sunflower machinery, no outside reviewer has published an examination beyond the thread remark recorded above, and the site credits the problem's solution to Ho's manuscript and its formalization, not to this draft. Its claim to the Problem 202 asymptotic itself concerns Problem 202 and is recorded on its claim page there, not on this page.