Sometimes a UX research team will do a lot of excellent research and present their conclusions, leading to a discussion of what you should do about the customer problems, and then you get a nice report with lots of well-justified suggestions for how to prioritize your upcoming work. And the suggestions will all be pretty relevant good ideas.
At that point, it will sometimes turn out that the suggestions based on the UX research are pretty much what you were going to do anyway. This is a good thing. Not a Eureka moment, obviously, but like all forms of science, corroborating existing results is valuable.
It also adds credibility when the UX researchers one day come back with results that are more controversial; then you know you should listen because they are right so often.
Contrast with UX teams that are constantly blowing your mind with their amazing discoveries and suggestions. That's not a good sign. It means either your UX research or your PM/Eng teams are horribly broken.