https://web.archive.org/web/20220203013548/https://www.thegu...
They submitted at 2022-02-03T03:09:31 [0] but this post got re-upped by the mods, as they sometimes do for submissions they feel deserve a second chance [1]
[0] as you can confirm by mousing over where it currently, erroneously, says "3 hours"
(Note the use of the word "identified" in OP's title, not "confirmed" as in the original version of the article that you linked to.)
https://web.archive.org/web/20220203024757/https://www.thegu...
So if they have done that, then combined with the detail in the recent article about matching to the plans, it may well be reasonable to assign a high probability of it being the Endeavour.
So maybe not 'proof', but a reasonable high probability assumption. Unless they find specific unique details from that ship in the wreck, what else could count as 'definite' proof?
For context here's what @dfawcus was replying to since I can no longer edit back in:
> Here's a related article from 2018 with a bit more historical context: https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2018/sep/19/wreck...