More Than "Means to an End": Supporting Reasoning with Transparently Designed AI Data Science Processes

Many AI systems are organized around loops in which models reason, call tools, observe results, and continue until a task is complete. These systems often produce final artifacts such as memos, plans, recommendations, and analyses, while the intermediate work that shaped those outputs remains ephemeral. For multi-step, revisable AI work, final artifacts are often lossy projections over upstream state. We argue that such systems should preserve durable, inspectable intermediate artifacts: typed, structured, addressable, versioned, dependency-aware, authoritative, and consumable by downstream computation. These artifacts are not the model's private chain-of-thought. They are maintained work products such as evidence maps, claim structures, criteria, assumptions, plans, transformation rules, synthesis procedures, unresolved tensions, and partial products that later humans and agents can inspect, revise, supersede, and improve. The contribution is a systems-level data model. We distinguish intermediate artifacts from chat transcripts, memory, hidden chain-of-thought, narration, thinking, and final answers; formalize additive and superseding update semantics with explicit current-state resolution; describe how artifact lineage supports durable intermediate state across revisions; and argue that evaluation must target maintained-state quality, not only final-output quality. The claim is not that artifacts make models smarter. It is that durable intermediate artifacts make AI-generated work more inspectable, revisable, and maintainable over time.

Artificial intelligence offers powerful new tools for scientific discovery, but the interaction paradigms required to effectively harness these systems remain underexplored. In this paper, we present findings from a formative user study with 11 expert mathematicians who used AlphaEvolve, an evolutionary coding agent, to tackle advanced problems in their fields of expertise. We identify and characterize a distinct workflow we term intentmaking, the iterative process of discovering, defining, and refining one's experimental goals through active system interaction. We frame this as a natural extension to sensemaking, the cognitive process of building an understanding of complex or novel data. We suggest that users enter a cycle of intentmaking (defining and updating their experiment) and sensemaking (interpreting the results) which repeats many times during the course of an investigation. Our documentation of these themes suggests an approach to designing AI tools for scientific discovery that goes beyond the existing question/answer model of many current systems, treating them as collaborative instruments rather than opaque black-box assistants.

Generative AI (GAI) reveals an irreducible human core at the center of data science: advances in GAI should sharpen, rather than diminish, the focus on human reasoning in data science education. GAI can now execute many routine data science workflows, including cleaning, summarizing, visualizing, modeling, and drafting reports. Yet the competencies that matter most remain irreducibly human: problem formulation, measurement and design, causal identification, statistical and computational reasoning, ethics and accountability, and sensemaking. Drawing on Donoho's Greater Data Science framework, Nolan and Temple Lang's vision of computational literacy, and the McLuhan-Culkin insight that we shape our tools and thereafter our tools shape us, this paper traces the emergence of data science through three converging lineages: Tukey's intellectual vision of data analysis as a science, the commercial logic of surveillance capitalism that created industrial demand for data scientists, and the academic programs that followed. Mapping GAI's impact onto Donoho's six divisions of Greater Data Science shows that computing with data (GDS3) has been substantially automated, while data gathering, preparation, and exploration (GDS1) and science about data science (GDS6) still require essential human input. The educational implication is that data science curricula should focus on this human core while teaching students how to contribute effectively within iterative prompt-output-prompt cycles using retrieval-augmented generation, and that learning outcomes and assessments should explicitly evaluate reasoning and judgment.