As I understand it, there are at least two possible scenarios in pinpointing the causative properties that may have led to the origin of life. (a) identification through experiment (b) identification through discovery.
As far as the implications of laboratory experiments go, it is hard to tell what will or will not happen there. But it is certain that progress only belongs to those with an idea that something will happen and that causative properties will continue to be discovered. It is another piece of logic (solid or not) that assumes laboratory experiments identify or simulate conditions 4.5 billion years ago. This kind of thinking moves toward (b).
I do want to be careful about accepting Darwin's suggestion that the laboratory is the only place that such conditions will be recognized. He certainly wanted to hold that position--I'm still thinking through the logic.
Discovery ( as opposed to laboratory replication) of the origins of life is extremely unlikely, for reasons outlined by Darwin in 1870.
What we may be able to demonstrate is a series of natural processes that can lead to life. The possibility that what we discover in the laboratory is the actual path taken in our history is both remote and unimportant.
Worrying about the one and only history of life is like worrying about the Brownian paths taken by each and every molecule of the air you breathe.