So basically is looking like mostly a no? The replications haven't been encouraging so far.
First, a theoretical study found that the phase that’s reported to be superconducting is likely to be metastable based on some density functional theory calculations. That implies that actually making it may be rather difficult, and raises the bar for reproductions to show exactly what they are finding is superconducting or not. https://arxiv.org/abs/2307.16892
The second study was a comparison of the properties of superconducting Pb thin films with some of the data people have been reporting on LK-99 repro attempts. The authors hypothesize that people are getting micron to several nanometer sized particles of the superconducting phase embedded in an amporphous non-superconducting phase, and that this explains the mixed results. https://arxiv.org/abs/2308.01723
So, more careful analysis is needed and I’m still optimistic. I want to see much better x-ray and microscopic characterization along with the resistance data and so on, especially because the property measurements can be tricky. (My background is materials science but not superconductivity or condensed matter physics if that matters)
A clear no would be multiple sources synthesizing a material that is clearly the same as LK-99 (e.g. by showing most or all of the behavior shown in the videos or described in one of the papers), and then showing experimentally that it isn't actually a superconductor but that some other effect is at play.
They say they are willing to let other labs examine their sample. If nothing has happened in two months i'll get worried, but for now I don't expect any lab to have seen it
The only thing we need is solid evidence that it's superconducting. If anyone has a stone that's superconducting at room temperature, then we know it's out there, it's possible to make it. It doesn't matter so much how it was made. If it exists, that's a great step in itself, isn't it?
The smaller the sample, the smaller the resistance is even if it's not superconducting, and all sorts of other effects come into play - i.e. your wires and leads have a resistance you need to account for, parasitic inductance and capacitance climbs etc.
If someone can show both diamagnetism and prove that it is not a superconductor then that would be pretty discouraging.
If someone can show that it is diamagnetic and not superconducting then that could be evidence that they recreated the same material, but that it doesn't show superconductivity.
And it would go a way in explaining why so many take the claims seriously and try to replicate it, if we know there's something exciting going on either way.