Evidence shows two different outcomes for the two parts of the normalized prediction:

1. Views surpassing 17 million on X/Twitter – This happened quickly. Reports note Tucker Carlson’s first “Tucker on Twitter” episode amassed tens of millions of views, with tweet impressions in the 80–110 million range within about a day, far beyond the initial 17M cited in the podcast discussion.(observer.com) Third‑party analytics (Tubular Labs) estimated roughly 26–27 million actual video views (2+ seconds watched) for episode 1, still well over 17M.(aol.com) So the narrow claim that the initial episode would keep accumulating views beyond 17M was correct.

2. “Larger ongoing distribution on Twitter than he had on Fox News” – This is where the prediction fails.

   • At Fox, Tucker Carlson Tonight averaged about 3.3 million viewers per night in 2022 and roughly 3.25–3.39 million in early 2023, making it one of the highest‑rated shows in cable news.(press.foxnews.com)
   • On Twitter/X, after an initial spike, Tucker on Twitter’s audience fell sharply. Analyses based on Twitter’s own video‑view metric (2+ seconds watched) show episode 1 around 26–27M video views, but by episode 8 views had dropped to about 3.8M, an ~86% decline.(forbes.com)
   • Major media‑measurement experts emphasize that X “views” (brief impressions or 2‑second plays) are not comparable to Nielsen’s average‑minute TV audience; comparisons that claim Carlson’s X audience “dwarfs” his Fox ratings are described as misleading and “apples and oranges.”(aol.com)
   • Longer‑term, coverage of Carlson’s post‑Fox career notes that his overall media reach has diminished relative to his Fox tenure; his subscription Tucker Carlson Network is reported to have on the order of hundreds of thousands of subscribers, far fewer than the multi‑million nightly audience he had on Fox.(theguardian.com)

Because (a) the metrics for Twitter/X and TV aren’t directly comparable, and (b) where we can compare, the best available evidence suggests his sustained, reliably engaged audience is smaller now than it was on Fox, the strong version of the prediction — that he would achieve larger ongoing distribution on Twitter than on Fox News — did not come true.

Overall, weighing both parts together, the more consequential and falsifiable portion (ongoing distribution exceeding Fox) is contradicted by the data and expert assessments, so the prediction is best classified as wrong.