Abstract
Autonomous research agents can now produce competitive solutions and complete manuscripts, yet their papers routinely contain fabricated citations, method descriptions disconnected from the code, and scores on incorrect scales---failures invisible to evaluations that assess fluency rather than evidentiary grounding. The core problem is verifiability: no existing system maintains a traceable chain from each claim in the paper to its grounding evidence, and current evaluation protocols assess output fluency rather than evidentiary grounding. We address this with Chaine-of-Evidence (CoE), a verifiability standard requiring every claim to trace to its grounding evidence, and instantiate it in Scientist One, an end-to-end research system that maintains evidence chains natively, and CoE Audit, an evaluation protocol with four integrity checks targeting the most damaging chain failures. Auditing 60 papers from four systems, we find every baseline exhibits at least one failure: phantom citations at 4--25%, method-code alignment in at most 2/15 papers. Scientist One achieves zero phantom citations (0/830), the highest alignment rate (7/15), and competitive solver scores.