The question: which is it?

The films deliberately keep this unresolved — which is the point. Jack operates by a method that looks identical to luck from the outside and genius from the inside, and the ambiguity is what makes him fascinating.

What is the argument for genius?

His plans work. Every time he appears to have backed himself into an impossible corner, a solution emerges that retroactively reveals he had anticipated the situation. The attack on Port Royal, the jar of dirt gambit, the maelstrom battle — each one suggests pre-planning so detailed that the apparent improvisation was actually choreography.

What is the argument for luck?

His plans also fail constantly. He just fails upward — the things that go wrong produce outcomes he can pivot to exploit. A genius would have predicted the specific failure; Jack appears to discover the opportunity when the failure lands. The difference between someone who plans brilliantly and someone who recovers brilliantly is not always visible from the outside.

What is the actual answer?

Both, in a specific ratio: Jack plans broadly (desired outcome, general direction), executes sloppily (many moving parts, reliance on others' predictable irrationality), and recovers creatively when things go wrong. The genius is in the recovery speed and the ability to recognize new opportunity in the wreckage of the original plan.

What does this ambiguity do for the character?

It keeps viewers asking the question across four films. The character who might be clever or might be lucky is more interesting than the character who is definitely clever, because you're always evaluating — you're always a step behind, which is exactly where Jack wants you.