Q&A Updated

Jiang Xueqin Accuracy: What His Track Record Shows So Far

As of 2026-10-02, Jiang Xueqin’s tracked predictive history accuracy is 77% among resolved predictions: 17 confirmed and 5 wrong. That is 22 resolved calls out of 414 tracked. The number is real, but it is not a verdict on all 414. Most calls—367—remain pending or unverifiable. So the direct answer is: on the predictions that have actually resolved, Jiang has been more right than wrong. But with only 22 outcomes, the margin of error is wide enough that nobody should treat 77% as a stable law.

The live tally

The project has logged 414 predictions from 181 source lectures, 180 of them transcribed. That is a big input pile. The output pile is much smaller: 17 confirmed, 5 wrong, 367 still pending or unverifiable. The accuracy dashboard updates as calls resolve; the predictions database shows each call by ID, category, timeline, and date.

This distinction matters. A prediction like P011—the United States will go to war with Iran—was made in April 2024 with a two-to-four-year horizon. It did not resolve immediately. A prediction with a 2029 timeline may sit pending for years. The 77% headline is therefore a resolved-base rate, not a batting average over every lecture claim. The pending bucket is not evidence of accuracy or failure. It is mostly the future, plus some claims that cannot be checked cleanly.

The confirmed calls

The confirmed side includes calls that were specific enough to test.

These are not vague “something will happen” calls. They name actors, targets, and mechanisms. That is why they are in the confirmed column. The database also includes P011, the broader US-Iran war call, and P018, that the war would last weeks or years. Both are marked confirmed as the conflict extended. And P041, Mojtaba Khamenei as next Supreme Leader, is confirmed. The pattern is not random noise: several calls cluster around a US-Iran conflict thesis, and that thesis produced a run of hits.

Where he has been wrong

The wrong column is small but not empty. P002a—Trump will pick Nikki Haley as his vice president—failed. Trump chose JD Vance instead. The same May 2024 lecture window produced P002b, which treated Vance as a strong alternative. That is a useful reminder: Jiang’s predictive history accuracy is not built on one flawless bet. It includes competing scenarios, updates, and misses.

The 5 wrong calls out of 22 resolved outcomes mean the 77% is not a perfect record. It is 17 hits against 5 misses. If you ask whether Jiang Xueqin is reliable, the answer depends on what you mean. As a source of specific, falsifiable geopolitical calls, he has earned attention. As an oracle, no. The sample is too small for that.

How to read the numbers

Three caveats should travel with the 77%.

First, the denominator is small. Twenty-two resolved calls is enough to notice a pattern, not enough to estimate a permanent accuracy rate. One or two flips would move the percentage by several points.

Second, resolution is uneven. Some categories, especially the US-Iran war, have produced many confirmed calls because events moved quickly. Other categories remain mostly pending. A high resolved rate in one cluster does not automatically transfer to the rest.

Third, “unverifiable” is a real bucket. It sits with “not yet” in the 367 pending total. That keeps the live tally honest, but it also means the confirmed/wrong split is not the full story of Jiang’s output.

For now, the cleanest reading is this: Jiang Xueqin right or wrong is a question with a measurable, if provisional, answer. On the 22 predictions that have resolved as of 2026-10-02, he is 17-5. That is a strong resolved-case record with a small-N warning label. The next update will matter more than the last one.

Browse all tracked predictions · Accuracy analysis · All blog posts

Track his next call

He predicted the Iran war, Trump's comeback, and the fall of Khamenei — on camera, before they happened. Get a free email the moment his next prediction is confirmed or proven wrong.