---

Claim. According to the comment of 15 September 2026 in the site's discussion thread, the repository's final theorem is the Axenovich--Clemen Conjecture 1.3: for every $q\ge4$, with $\ell=\binom q2$, there are arbitrarily large $n\equiv1\pmod\ell$ and balanced $\ell$-colorings of $K_n$ without a rainbow $K_q$, that is, $d(n,K_q)=\infty$ for infinitely many admissible $n$. For Problem 811 this puts every clique $K_q$ with $q\ge4$ outside the answer set; the comment adds that, with the known positive cases $K_2$ and $K_3$, this covers every clique with at least one edge, and presents the result as settling the problem for complete graphs. It describes the theorem as extending the known exclusions, $K_4$ by Clemen and Wagner and $K_q$ for $q\ge10$ with $q\equiv2,3\pmod4$ by Axenovich and Clemen's Theorem 1.4, both refereed, and names those two papers as its mathematical sources. The comment reports that the standalone file checks under Lean 4.27.0, that the final theorem's axioms are propext, Classical.choice and Quot.sound only, that the proof uses no sorry, admit, native_decide or project-specific axiom, and that the development was carried out with the assistance of two language-model systems, which it names as OpenAI ChatGPT and Codex (GPT-6 Astra).

Covers. The clique cases only: every $K_q$ with $q\ge4$ is outside the answer set, so that, with $K_2$ (trivially forced) and $K_3$ (Erdős and Tuza's Theorem 2) inside, the problem would be decided for every complete graph. It says nothing about any other graph, in particular not about $C_6$ or $2K_3$, the other candidates Erdős and Tuza named, and the classification the problem asks for stays open. The value is disproved: the claim refutes the property for each $K_q$ with $q\ge4$.

Depends on. Nothing in this wiki; the claim rests on the repository's own Lean development.

Standing. Claimed. The result was posted on 15 September 2026 as a comment in the site's discussion thread by Kenta Kitamura, with a public repository created the same day (linked above at the commit the comment's type-checker link names), a web type-checker link to a standalone file, and a submission comment on the formal-conjectures issue for this problem. On 2026-09-18 the site's proof-claim tab carried no entry, its label and commentary were unchanged, the formal-conjectures issue was open with that one comment, and nothing for this problem was merged in formal-conjectures at the commit the problem page pins. As of 2026-10-07 the thread carried the same two comments, the proof-claim tab was empty and the label was OPEN; the state of the issue and the repository is recorded as of 2026-09-18. No review of the proof by the site, by formal-conjectures or by a referee is known to this corpus, and this corpus has neither read the repository nor built the file: the axiom report above is the poster's own statement and warrants nothing here. A merge into formal-conjectures with the statement audited against the problem, or a documented independent check of the final theorem's statement and axioms, would move the claim to accepted.