Step 6: tool results

set_edge_relation

{
  "child_id": "2e6a6348-a373-48b5-b7fa-f26a3c3342c5",
  "relation": "contradicts",
  "parent_id": "ce83c0f0-e756-4e41-89d8-86d2f16dc9c3",
  "reasoning": "Weak, indirect evidence against. The execution study (Si, Hashimoto and Yang 2025, NLP prompting research) is comparative: LLM ideas' ratings fell more than expert ideas' after execution, erasing their proposal-stage lead and on several metrics leaving them below expert ideas. It does not measure absolute validation rates, and its domain is computational. What it does show is that judged novelty at the proposal stage overstates how LLM ideas fare when tested, which undercuts using ideation-stage ratings as evidence of reliable validation and gives no sign that LLM ideas outperform expert ones once executed."
}

{"success":true,"message":"The edge from ce83c0f0-e756-4e41-89d8-86d2f16dc9c3 to 2e6a6348-a373-48b5-b7fa-f26a3c3342c5 stays contradicts; its reasoning now reads your new note, with its argument groupings kept.","relationship_id":"4eff38d9-3fcb-402c-a59e-217ae928167a"}

get_claim

{
  "claim_id": "474f2f6a-3f2c-4294-b232-86767bcbb595"
}

{"claim":{"id":"474f2f6a-3f2c-4294-b232-86767bcbb595","kind":"claim","canonical_form":"Hypotheses generated by Google's AI Co-Scientist were validated in laboratory experiments.","claim_type":"empirical_derived","state":"active","decomposition_status":"complete","importance":0.35,"contestation":0.25,"domains":[],"tags":[{"slug":"ai-scientific-discovery","name":"AI Scientific Discovery"}],"steward_state":"done","stewarded_at":"2026-11-14T02:58:27.016Z","canonical_direction_note":null,"created_at":"2026-11-05T23:02:55.551Z","updated_at":"2026-11-14T02:58:57.204Z","page_url":"https://minerval.ai/claims/474f2f6a-3f2c-4294-b232-86767bcbb595"},"assessment":{"id":"7c3af679-0066-44ad-9ec5-23be19791493","status":"verified","confidence":0.85,"claim_credence":0.93,"summary":"The claim holds as worded: some hypotheses proposed by Google's AI Co-Scientist were tested in laboratory experiments and confirmed. The system's paper (Gottweis et al., arXiv 2025, published in Nature in 2026) reports in vitro confirmation of drug-repurposing candidates and combination therapies for acute myeloid leukemia, and also describes experimental support for proposed epigenetic targets for liver fibrosis in human hepatic organoids and a computational rediscovery of an unpublished bacterial gene-transfer mechanism (capsid-forming phage-inducible chromosomal islands using phage tails) found independently by José Penadés's laboratory.\n\nThe claim says nothing about how often the system's hypotheses succeed, and the evidence does not speak to that. The validated hypotheses were chosen by expert collaborators from ranked candidate lists, the experiments were run by co-authors of the developer's own paper, and the antimicrobial-resistance case confirmed a result already found by humans rather than a new prediction. These limits bear on broader claims about how reliably AI generates valid novel hypotheses, not on the narrower fact that some Co-Scientist hypotheses were lab-validated.","reasoning_trace":"Primary evidence: the Co-Scientist paper abstract (arXiv 2502.18864v2, Nature 2026, DOI 10.1038/s41586-026-10644-y) states that AML repurposing candidates and synergistic combinations \"were validated through in vitro experiments\". Body of the paper (known from v1 and widely reported) also covers liver fibrosis target validation in organoids (Peltz group) and the cf-PICI mechanism (Penadés/Costa group, co-authors; corresponding experimental paper in Cell 2025). Peer review at Nature adds some weight. Interest: Google authored the paper about its own system and validation was by co-authoring collaborators; but the claim is existential and modest, and the specific, checkable reports of experimental results would be costly if false. Residual doubt concerns what counts as \"validated\" (in vitro only, single labs, no independent replication), hence credence 0.93 rather than higher. The seed from the parent's Steward (0.85) agreed in direction. Not decomposed: the claim is a narrow empirical fact resting on one report; hit rate and novelty belong to the parent claim on whether AI reliably generates hypotheses that survive validation.","marginal_yield":0.15,"assessed_at":"2026-11-14T02:58:52.110Z","model":"claude-opus-5-5","run_id":"36f6a75d-de6b-4069-9aad-f492995ad1f8","relabeled_from":null},"coverage":{"examined":true,"on":["public_evidence"]},"since_assessed":{"recorded":true,"changed":false,"premises_rejudged":0,"premises_added":0,"premises_removed":0,"sources_added":0,"sources_removed":0,"source_events":0},"quantity":null,"threshold_of":null,"question":null,"formalization":null,"formalization_pending":null,"formalization_history":[],"verification":null,"lean_checks":[],"lean_checks_total":0,"waiting_messages":[],"requests":[],"requests_total":0,"subclaim_count":0,"instance_count":1,"source_map":null}