The Ceiling Is in the Channel: Auditing Learner Gaps and Measurement Frontiers in Clinical Prediction

Clinical risk models routinely achieve strong aggregate performance while producing materially different error rates across patient subgroups. Audit pipelines have been proposed to catch this, but their components are rarely stress-tested, so it is unclear which parts of an audit can be trusted and under what conditions. We present KAISEN, a five-phase audit pipeline covering subgroup stratification, disparity measurement, mechanism diagnostics, post-hoc mitigation, and drift monitoring, evaluated to the point of failure on a synthetic benchmark of 16 disease tasks, 15 social-determinant axes from Healthy People 2030, and three prespecified intersections. Four findings follow. (i) Significance tracks each axis's gap against its own minimum detectable effect: rank correlation between significance count and raw equalized-odds difference (EOD) across the 15 axes is rho = 0.56, rising to rho = 0.78 once EOD is standardized by that floor. (ii) Per-group threshold optimization reduces EOD in 48 of 48 held-out runs (paired delta = -0.285, 95% CI [-0.313, -0.252]), while group-wise Platt scaling -- the better calibrator -- behaves as a coin flip on EOD (19 of 48 runs improved, 95% CI [0.26, 0.55]) with mean effect near zero, so what an audit should report is the variance, not the average. (iii) The mechanism diagnostic classifies 144 of 144 controlled cases correctly but recovers none of 48 model-driven cases under proxy misspecification, with no signal that it failed. (iv) CUSUM failures and false alarms track cohort realization far more than disease: at the reference threshold, all 27 false alarms and 7 of 8 missed shifts come from different seeds (chi-squared p = 0.002), so a threshold tuned on one cohort fails to transfer. All results are synthetic with known ground truth and do not establish clinical validity. Code, artifacts, and scripts reproducing every number are released.

Cardiovascular screening models trained on national health surveys routinely report areas under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) near 0.89. We asked whether that accuracy reflects learning or target leakage, whether tabular foundation models change the answer, and whether the properties deployment requires survive joint examination. We benchmarked ten classifiers spanning linear, tree-ensemble, neural, glass-box, and tabular foundation classes for prevalent myocardial infarction in 442,067 respondents of the 2022 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System across five feature tiers of decreasing leakage risk. Each was audited for discrimination, calibration, fairness at an explicit screening threshold, conformal coverage, explanation faithfulness, and inference cost, then applied -- models and thresholds frozen -- to 430,755 respondents of 2023. Removing two post-diagnostic features cost every model 0.049-0.051 AUROC, collapsing the field into a 0.0045-wide band. The glass-box explainable boosting machine was non-inferior to every alternative within a pre-specified 0.005 margin while scoring the cohort roughly 104 times faster than the strongest foundation model. One threshold detected 75.4% of women's infarctions against 89.0% of men's; editing the model's shape functions reduced the gap to 0.010. Marginal conformal prediction gave 0.86 coverage to men and 0.82 to adults over 60; Mondrian calibration repaired every stratum. Frozen models transported within 0.002 AUROC. Reported headroom in this literature is a property of the feature set, not the learner. Transparency cost nothing measurable and made fairness repair and uncertainty conditioning directly auditable. Evaluation practice, not model capacity, is the binding constraint.

Data leakage -- contamination of a model with information unavailable at baseline -- is the dominant reproducibility failure in machine-learning-based science, yet detection tools require training code, external data, or domain expertise. None operates on the artifact an auditor most often holds: the model's output. We ask what can be decided about leakage from predictions and outcomes alone. We give a decision-theoretic framework in which leakage diagnostics are functionals of the predicted-risk/outcome law, parameterized by a threshold-weighting linked to proper scoring rules and decision-curve analysis. We prove a sharp impossibility: a recalibrated leak matching an honest model's calibration and discrimination is indistinguishable from honest performance by \emph{any} function of the predictions, so the broad class is detectable only against an externally supplied ceiling on achievable discrimination. We then prove what leakage cannot hide: a near-deterministic subgroup -- the signature of a near-label leak -- produces a sustained unit-purity head that no legitimate predictor of a non-deterministic outcome can manufacture, yielding a prior-free test. These results organize leakage into a trichotomy -- miscalibrated, broad-calibrated, and deterministic -- each with a matched detector and failure mode. We validate on UK Biobank using time-windowed comorbidity leakage with known, graded severity, measuring a detection floor of $Δ\cstar \approx 0.007$ on this endpoint, below which residual leakage is undetectable from output and too small to alter conclusions. The numerical floor is cohort- and endpoint-specific; the structural lesson is general: output-only detection fails where residual leakage is indistinguishable from an honestly stronger predictor. The test returns a verdict on a prediction vector in under a second on commodity hardware.