Disproved, on two routes. (1) The statement is false by the elementary Observation on p. 1 of Wigderson's note [Wig22] (result page, recomputed below): for $\mathcal F=\{K_{1,2},2K_2\}$, both members bipartite, $\mathrm{ex}(n;\mathcal F)=1$ for $n\ge2$ while $\mathrm{ex}(n;K_{1,2})=\lfloor n/2\rfloor$ and $\mathrm{ex}(n;2K_2)=n-1$ for $n\ge4$, so no member satisfies the displayed comparison. (2) The no-forest form is disproved by Theorem 1.1 of Chapter 10 of OpenAI's technical report Ten Advances in Mathematics and Theoretical Computer Science (August 6, 2026 version; result page): a finite nonempty family $\mathcal F$ of connected bipartite graphs, every member containing a cycle, with $\mathrm{ex}(n,\mathcal F)=O(n^{4/3-1/48})$ and $\mathrm{ex}(n,F)=\Omega(n^{4/3})$ for every $F\in\mathcal F$. Its author is OpenAI; the announcement attributes the arguments to an internal model and manuscript preparation to humans working with that model; the site accepted it as the disproof on 31 August 2026 with the label DISPROVED. This is a source-supported solution accepted by the site, distinct from a claim of journal refereeing: no refereed publication and no independent expert review of the argument was found, and the corpus has not built or audited the accompanying Lean file. The claim pages record both routes: Wigderson's two-forest observation is claimed, since no outside acceptance of it is documented (the site's commentary does not mention it, and the report's p. 237 restates the values without reviewing the note), and OpenAI's Theorem 1.1 is accepted on the site's acceptance alone (evidence reviewed: the curator's label and commentary of 31 August 2026), with no refereed publication and no independent review. The frontmatter standing is derived from the accepted claim, so it rests on the site's acceptance of an AI-generated argument; the elementary route (1) is recomputed below but, as this project's own check, awards no acceptance.