What? The article states:

    > Drawing on extensive prior research by mathematicians over the past decades, it 
    > [Claude] has increased this bound [for the fraction of zeros of the Riemann zeta 
    > function that satisfy the Riemann hypothesis] from 41.6% to 67.2%. Claude also 
    > produced a formally verifiable proof of its result.

How is a formally verifiable proof not a proof? You're making literally no sense.