These two markets explore whether Chinese AI leaders Baidu or DeepSeek will achieve recognized global model supremacy by May 31, 2026—just 14 days from this writing. Both are priced at 0% YES, reflecting near-unanimous trader conviction that neither company will hold the "best" position by month-end. This extreme pricing reflects a crucial reality: with only two weeks remaining, any shift in leadership would require either a remarkable breakthrough release or consensus that one of these firms already holds the title by established metrics. The timeline is so compressed that the markets effectively price in the status quo. The core relationship between these markets is directly competitive. If Baidu achieves the best AI model by end of May, then DeepSeek cannot simultaneously hold that position. Both markets cannot resolve YES. However, both can resolve NO—which is the current market consensus. A NO-NO outcome assumes that OpenAI, Google, Anthropic, or another established lab maintains the lead. The 0% pricing on both suggests traders are confident that Western AI labs retain dominance despite rapid advancement from Chinese competitors. This reflects both the entrenched position of existing leaders and the difficulty of displacing them in just two weeks. Divergence potential emerges when considering how "best" is measured and by whom. If evaluation criteria emphasize reasoning capability, long-context performance, or instruction-following—traditional strengths of GPT-4 and Claude—Baidu and DeepSeek face structural headwinds. Conversely, if criteria prioritize training efficiency, inference speed, cost-per-token, or multilingual support, the competitive landscape shifts. Market divergence also hinges on benchmark selection: academic leaderboards like MMLU and MATH might rank models differently than real-world performance on reasoning or creative tasks. Traders pricing both at 0% may be implicitly assuming external third-party benchmarks (not company announcements) determine outcomes. Key factors to monitor include: (1) major model releases from either company with substantiated performance claims, (2) third-party benchmark results from credible AI research institutions, (3) enterprise adoption signals indicating practical superiority, and (4) market adjudicator clarification on how "best" will be defined and measured. The Chinese AI ecosystem has demonstrated rapid iteration, suggesting 0% pricing may underestimate tail risk. However, the extremely tight timeline and entrenched leads held by Western labs explain why traders remain skeptical of either company achieving supremacy by month-end.