Selection Shapes the Boundary: A Preregistered Replication of Monotonicity and Label Agreement in Unselected NLI Populations

Human label variation in natural language inference is increasingly treated as signal rather than noise, but how much of it formal semantic structure explains has not been measured directly. We measure it on the 3,113 SNLI and MNLI items of ChaosNLI, using a rule-based operator and monotonicity tagger validated against MED (0.883 agreement at the edit site, 0.807 on the sentence-level summary our analyses consume), three preregistered analysis blocks, and full reporting of negative results. Three bounds emerge. First, a group-level boundary: hypotheses that are not purely upward monotone show reliably higher label entropy (Cliff's delta = -0.284), and rank-based tests defend the effect against operator-presence and length reductions, though a bounded-outcome sensitivity check weakens the regression form of the length defense. Second, an item-level ceiling: the same formal profiles explain only 3.3 to 3.6 percent of entropy variance and reach a median-split AUC of 0.606, too weak to identify high-disagreement items. Third, composition invariance: across the boundary, three high-powered preregistered contrasts on validated error shares and explanation-type shares (VariErr, LiTEx) all return null results. In this sample, formal semantic structure shifts how much annotators disagree by a small amount and does not detectably change what they disagree about. ChaosNLI-S/M consists of items selected for low original agreement, and every claim is conditioned on that scope. All analyses were preregistered in a version-controlled research log, whose audit trail, including one corrected interpretation rule, the paper discloses.

When annotators disagree on a label, the disagreement itself carries signal -- and the number of annotators needed to capture it depends on the evaluation metric. We fine-tune NLI models on label distributions subsampled from ChaosNLI, a dataset providing 100 independent annotator judgments per item, and identify metric-dependent saturation. In our 3-class NLI setting, entropy correlation -- whether the model identifies which items elicit disagreement -- requires N ~ 20-50 annotators to converge, while distributional match (KL divergence) saturates by N ~ 10 (87-95% of improvement across five model seeds). This finding rests on a prior observation: soft labels carry item-specific signal that label smoothing cannot replicate. Across five smoothing intensities, entropy correlation clusters at r ~ 0.45-0.49, while soft labels reach r = 0.643 (p < 0.001); per-item analysis traces this gap to smoothing's inability to distinguish ambiguous items from clear ones. The soft-label advantage replicates across two architectures (DeBERTa, RoBERTa), a non-NLI-pretrained baseline, and an exploratory cross-domain evaluation on content safety. These results suggest that annotation budgets should be informed by the target evaluation metric rather than set uniformly.

Subjective NLP datasets typically aggregate annotator judgments into a single gold label, making it difficult to diagnose whether disagreement reflects unclear criteria, collapsed distinctions, or legitimate plurality. We propose a \emph{schema-level diagnostic} for auditing expert-designed annotation schemas \emph{prior to} gold-label commitment, using only multi-annotator criterion judgments. The diagnostic separates two failure modes: unstable criteria with hard-to-operationalize boundaries, and systematic overlap that blurs the boundaries between mutually exclusive categories. Applied to persuasive value extraction in commercial documents, we find that disagreement is not diffuse: instability concentrates in a few criteria, while nearly half of covered sentences activate multiple categories. These signals align with where domain experts disagree, yielding an evidence-based audit for tightening guidelines, revising category structure, or reconsidering the annotation paradigm.