Artificial intelligence systems applied to mathematics verify correctness but not novelty: an automatically generated theorem can compile in Lean without errors and yet be an already known result. This article presents AViD Journal, a pipeline that receives a LaTeX article, formalizes its statements in Lean 4, and issues a novelty verdict through a decision tree over three dimensions: prior existence in a formal corpus (Mathlib) and an informal one (TheoremSearch and Matlas, with temporal filter and LLM judge), non-triviality via automatic tactics, and structural distance between proofs measured as Jaccard distance over premise sets. Evaluation on papers withdrawn from arXiv due to declared duplication produced a result more informative than any performance measure: the identification of three obstacles that limit the approach regardless of this implementation. First, successful compilation of a Lean file does not guarantee semantic fidelity. Second, the recall ceiling is imposed by the coverage of theorem indices, not by the similarity metric. Third, arXiv removes the source code of articles upon withdrawal, compromising the reproducibility of any benchmark built upon them.
Mathematicians distinguish proofs that explain, simplify, or introduce a nonstandard route, but these judgments are difficult to operationalize. We study a deliberately narrower construct: time-relative proof-route nonstandardness in formal mathematics. For a Lean theorem, PriorProof extracts the dependency footprint of its elaborated proof term and scores the weighted surprisal of that footprint under a retrieval-conditioned, hierarchically smoothed prior built only from an earlier quarterly snapshot of Mathlib. The method requires no hand-built technique ontology and no human labels: statement retrieval is learned from proof-derived contrastive pairs, while the scored object is read mechanically from proof terms. In a blinded topology study, 100 presentations collapse to 76 distinct underlying pairs: 12 canonical contrasts shown three times for consistency screening and 64 distinct stratified pairs. Against the majority of three retained domain raters, PriorProof agrees on 53/76 pairs (69.7%, Wilson 95% CI 58.7-78.9%), including 11/12 canonical pairs (91.7%, 64.6-98.5%) and 42/64 stratified pairs (65.6%, 53.4-76.1%). Score-gap quartiles are nonmonotone after repeat collapse; the endpoints are 12/19 (63.2%, 41.0-80.9%) in the smallest-gap bin and 16/19 (84.2%, 62.4-94.5%) in the largest, supporting an endpoint-calibration tendency rather than a resolved staircase. The best language-model condition agrees on 60/76 pairs (78.9%, 68.5-86.6%); on paired outcomes, PriorProof alone is correct on 8 pairs and the model alone on 15 (exact two-sided McNemar p = 0.210), so the difference is not established at this sample size. We therefore present PriorProof not as a replacement for expert or model judgment, but as a decomposable, time-anchored signal whose score gap provides an interpretable reliability indicator.