Statements in scientific reports --- like in documents --- should be intend
to be true. Unfortunately this doesn't mean that there are public availible
proofs [a proof in the kind and matter mostly mathematician like me, but not I,
denote these kind of conclusion listings] to my knowledge of these facts.
Therefore mathematicians common style is to call these statements in the case
a conjecture in contrast to the case where one wrotes `proved'. Also, there is
the fine difference to 'proven' which even native english speakers often over-
look by using wrongly proved instead of proven.

Another point to clarify is: what is called a 'discovery'.
The central question is 'WHO knows IT' ? (one even could debatt about KNOW)
And then there is also the from-time-to-time appearing possibility that a fact
is only known by a single person (or a very small group of experts) but not
publicly. E.g. I get knowledge of a couple of MPN-discoveries only months after
the discoverer told his discovery to me/publicly. So I was forced to change
statistics in tables which laid in the past. And this could happen anytime
again. Especially I typically can't check the date-of-discovery told me by the
discoverer, or at least a claimer, so I must trust his date-of-discovery state-
ment if not obviously wrong.

In language you should distinguish between
'known, discovered, reported, claimed, published' fact or object sensefully.
The difference lies in the implicit (or unknown) WHO and WHOM! Abstractly seen:
who gives/gets information to/by whom.