[hgrbrm]

On page 4 they list two equivalent criteria for superconductivity: "the electric field criterion with 1 μV/cm or 0.1 μV/cm and resistivity criterion with 10^-11 Ω·cm." On the same page they write: "In various bulk samples, specific resistance was measured in the range of 10^-6 to 10^-9 Ω·cm." That does not meet the resistivity criterion, not even close.

In the second paper ( https://arxiv.org/abs/2307.12037 ) on page 8 they write: "In the first region below red-arrow C (near 60°C), equivalent to region F in the inset of Fig. 5, the resistivity with noise signals can be regarded as zero." I can only see from the plotted curve that the resistivity below 60°C is below about 5·10^-4 Ω·cm. Compare that to the resistivity of silver, which is 1.59·10^-6 Ω·cm.

It doesn't get better if you test the electric field criterion. On page 11 of the second paper you can see in Fig 6a that they measured a voltage of about 2mV in the "superconducting" state, and the voltage only drops off when the current approaches 0. In the first paper on page 19 they write that they used pogo probes with a distance of 1.2mm. So the electric field they measured is about 17mV/cm. That is a lot higher than the superconductor criterion of 1µV/cm, let alone 0.1µV/cm. Even if they mistakenly used mV instead of µV in their diagram, a factor of 17 would still need a good explanation.

So either a complete fake or an interesting effect but not superconductivity.