Generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) tools such as OpenAI's ChatGPT are transforming the educational landscape, prompting reconsideration of traditional assessment practices. In parallel, universities are exploring alternatives to in-person, closed-book examinations, raising concerns about academic integrity and pedagogical alignment in uninvigilated settings. This study investigates whether traditional closed-book mathematics examinations retain their pedagogical relevance when hypothetically administered in uninvigilated, open-book settings with GenAI access. Adopting an empirical approach, we generate, transcribe, and blind-mark GenAI submissions to eight undergraduate mathematics examinations at a Russell Group university, spanning the entirety of the first-year curriculum. By combining independent GenAI responses to individual questions, we enable a meaningful evaluation of GenAI performance, both at the level of modules and across the first-year curriculum. We find that GenAI attainment is at the level of a first-class degree, though current performance can vary between modules. Further, we find that GenAI performance is remarkably consistent when viewed across the entire curriculum, significantly more so than that of students in invigilated examinations. Our findings evidence the need for redesigning assessments in mathematics for unsupervised settings, and highlight the potential reduction in pedagogical value of current standards in the era of generative artificial intelligence.