Finite-Sample Coverage Audits for High-Recall Candidate Generation: Certification and Learning-Theoretic Design

Fairness audits are a key component of responsible machine-learning deployment. Yet, audit-recommendation reliability under incomplete protected-label access is still poorly understood. In this work, we focused on protected-label missingness in fairness mitigation audits. We introduced a seed-calibrated stress test to separate missingness effects from seed-to-seed movement already present under complete labels. Across ACS/Folktables tasks, missingness settings that retain some protected labels usually do not move selected mitigation methods beyond a complete-label seed-to-seed baseline. At $0$ protected-label access, candidates collapse to an empirical-risk-minimization baseline and deterministic tie-breaking rather than revealing a broad missingness effect. We also found that threshold optimization can turn fairness gains on a single protected axis into intersectional harm above a seed baseline, and this threshold-optimizer finding persists under random-forest validation. Overall, our results highlight that protected-label missingness should be reported with seed-null calibration, candidate-set context, and intersectional consequences before it is treated as evidence of audit fragility.

Certified selective predictors attain whatever coverage they attain; operators impose an automation floor: answer at least a $β$-fraction of shifted target traffic with at most an $α$-fraction of answers wrong. Under bounded-ratio covariate shift we prove the Floor Certification Map: once that floor must be certified alongside the selection-conditioned risk $α$, certification acquires a feasibility frontier and a two-resource complexity map, additive up to constants: risk in labeled source, the floor in unlabeled target samples. The rates are local, needing a regular frontier margin, slack below the local-regime threshold, and lattice conditions: pre-registered with a lattice margin for the upper bounds, compatible per-slack for the lower. The displayed split is the operational route; oracle weights also allow a labeled-source floor estimate. Three model-tagged results: a lower bound (Model-B), a matching oracle-weight upper bound (Model-A), and an implementable upper bound (Model-B') valid under a pre-registered exact stratified-shift model with nuisance cost priced explicitly. The match is across these models rather than a single-model minimax theorem, and necessarily so: over the full bounded-ratio class no unknown-weight procedure matches at any sample size (Model-B is inconsistent, witnessed at $α=β=1/2$). The nuisance's necessity is only partially settled. Complexity tracks a localized accepted-region functional, not global effective sample size (ESS), on both sides, though a fixed-ESS separation theorem is left open; both lower-bound axes vanish as $β\to0$, so the floor creates the map. Empirically, the registered bite family diverges with log-log slope $-2.002$ within its pre-registered band; a 1,024-cell audit records 0 violations where the formal certificates fire; and a single-corpus SQuAD-to-NewsQA feasibility audit returns honest refusal.

Classifiers can make identical predictions yet require labels to compare their selective performance: confidence ranks weight the same errors differently. We quantify this requirement for the area under the generalized risk-coverage curve (AUGRC). A prelabel lower bound rules out insufficient budgets. With all labels known, a covering linear program bounds the minimum number of labels sufficient to fix the winner (the certificate size) within $K-1$ labels for $K$ candidates. For fixed $K$, independent uniform orders and identical predictions, the prelabel bound approaches one quarter of the pool. With iid Bernoulli errors independent of the orders, every exact acquisition policy reads almost all labels asymptotically, although a two-candidate certificate needs only half. Across 108 feature-panel comparisons on nine datasets, disagreement labels settle every accuracy choice but no AUGRC choice. A 20% budget is ruled out in 96 conditions; certificates need 56-57% on average. On ten conditions with pretrained image classifiers, confidence-score choice reads 68-91% of 10,000 labels for exact selection and 50-67% with AUGRC tolerance $5\times10^{-4}$. An exact stopping test works with any acquisition order. Together, these results link confidence ranks to label budgets and certified model comparison.