Evidence about the June 3, 2024 House Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic hearing supports parts of Jason’s prediction but not the full, stronger claim in the normalized version.

What clearly happened

• Contentious / “explosive” tone: Major outlets described the hearing as contentious and fiery, highlighting bitter partisan clashes. Coverage emphasized heated exchanges, including Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene accusing Fauci of “crimes against humanity,” which briefly derailed the hearing over decorum issues. (cbsnews.com) This matches the “explosive” / highly contentious aspect of the prediction.
• Widely covered: The hearing was carried and analyzed by national news organizations (CBS, CNN, AP‑syndicated local outlets, Reuters, etc.), as well as partisan and niche outlets, indicating substantial media attention. (cbsnews.com)
• Some “revealing” material: Public questioning revisited and amplified material already emerging from Fauci’s January 2024 closed‑door testimony, including: his statement that the 6‑foot distancing guideline “sort of just appeared,” questions about NIH‑funded work with EcoHealth and the Wuhan Institute of Virology, and emails from Fauci aide David Morens about avoiding FOIA. Fauci publicly distanced himself from Morens and reiterated that he keeps an open mind on lab‑leak vs. natural origin while denying any cover‑up. (cbsnews.com) These points gave commentators “takeaways,” though most were continuations of earlier revelations rather than brand‑new bombshells.

Where the prediction goes beyond what we can verify

• The normalized prediction adds that the exchanges would “significantly escalate public controversy over Fauci’s role” in COVID‑19 origins and an alleged cover‑up. While controversy around Fauci and the lab‑leak hypothesis did intensify over 2024–2025 in general—e.g., the Republican‑led subcommittee’s December 2024 report concluding a lab‑associated origin is “most likely” and sharply criticizing Fauci, and later political moves like the Trump administration’s 2025 COVID‑origin website and removal of a Fauci mural at NIH (en.wikipedia.org)—those developments stem from a multi‑year investigation, accumulated documents, and broader politics.
• Available reporting on the June 3 hearing itself (from mainstream and partisan sources) treats it as a high‑profile, partisan hearing but does not identify it as a clear watershed that newly “cracked open” the origins issue or produced decisive new evidence against Fauci. Instead, it mainly publicized already‑emerging disputes and Fauci’s denials. (amp.cnn.com) There is no robust, quantifiable way to isolate how much that single hearing, versus the ongoing investigation and subsequent report, “significantly escalated” public controversy.

Because:

• The tone and media‑attention parts of the prediction clearly came true (contentious, widely covered, and to some extent revealing), but
• The claimed causal impact—that this specific hearing would significantly escalate controversy over Fauci’s role and a cover‑up—cannot be cleanly measured or attributed from available evidence,

the overall accuracy of the normalized prediction cannot be determined with confidence. Hence the classification "ambiguous" rather than clearly right or wrong.