In CEM, a World Model Is Also a Proposal Mechanism

Controllers based on sampling and latent world models assign a predicted terminal cost to each candidate action sequence, choose the minimum, execute its first action block, and replan. This rule can fail even when the terminal cost perfectly and accurately reflects the true task objective in the physical world. Residual prediction error can give an infeasible sequence an anomalously low cost, and a larger proposal pool gives such errors more chances to outrank feasible alternatives. We call this conditional failure proposal overgeneration. In Cube candidate execution audits, increasing the total proposal budget from 72 to 288 reduces the feasibility of selection by minimum latent cost from .375 to .062 for position targets and from .344 to .031 for targets defined by position and yaw, although every larger pool contains a feasible sequence. We introduce Adjacent Set Action Reconstruction (ASAR). Among proposals with low cost, ASAR identifies an adjacent set using standardized early action prefixes and reconstructs a full action sequence through locally weighted aggregation with a light anchor from the sequence with minimum cost. On a Carry and Release evaluation set of 75 queries, Kernel ASAR improves event completion success over matching selection by 28.0, 24.0, and 18.7 percentage points under latent cost and by 18.7, 20.0, and 17.3 points under a trajectory reachability cost at 72, 144, and 288 proposals. Analysis of finite proposal pools characterizes selection risk from the lower tail, separation by a related radius support statistic, and sequence containment under an explicit local feasibility condition.

We introduce loss-conditioned state execution, a model-agnostic method that decides whether to execute a world model's fixed feasible proposal or retain the current state. Predictive informativeness alone, however, does not establish whether an update will reduce downstream loss. Occurrence ranking can approach perfection while persistence remains the unique absolute-loss Bayes action. Two transition laws can also share occurrence information and conditional variance yet require opposite absolute-loss decisions. We formalize state movability as the existence of a loss-reducing feasible correction and distinguish it from the benefit of a particular proposal. Our method constructs a loss-specific feasible proposal from a predictive distribution and evaluates its groupwise bounded-loss gain over persistence on independent calibration units. The proposal is executed only in groups with a positive simultaneous lower confidence bound. For fixed proposals and groups with bounded unit losses, we prove that every accepted group has lower expected loss than persistence with high probability when calibration units are i.i.d. draws from the target population. Experiments on public forecasting and action-conditioned dynamics benchmarks show supported updates and a trade-off between certification and coverage. On 28,684 held-out M4 Monthly series, the method executes the proposal for 14.0% of series and achieves bounded loss 0.588, compared with 0.599 for persistence and 0.621 for always executing the proposal. The paired 95% bootstrap intervals for both comparisons lie below zero. In constrained forecasting of six unhealthy-inventory types from JD$\mbox{.}$com, a leading e-retailer in China, strong occurrence-ranking signal coexists with a loss-based preference for persistence, illustrating why event predictability and state execution must be evaluated separately.

Continual world models must decide whether new data justify changing the model. Fixed replay schedules and prediction-error triggers specify when to update, but neither reveals the value of an individual update: one deployment run cannot show how the same model would have performed at that moment had it held its parameters. We introduce the fork ledger, which branches a deployment stream at pre-registered decision points into matched update and hold continuations under common random numbers. It evaluates both continuations on the same episodes and records $\Delta R = R_{\mathrm{update}} - R_{\mathrm{hold}}$. Always applying one fixed update mechanism lowers return on all three simulated control tasks: CartPole ($-144.0$; checkpoint-bootstrap $95\%$ CI $[-185.4,-116.1]$, against a converged return near $650$), Walker ($-82.8$; $[-101.1,-61.7]$) and Cheetah ($-18.6$; $[-29.0,-6.6]$). Divergence is an outcome of applying the update, so the estimand counts every attempted fork; restricted to the $693$ of $720$ that did not collapse, CartPole and Walker are unchanged in sign ($-113.4$ and $-82.1$) and Cheetah becomes unresolved ($-3.9$; $[-17.5,+13.0]$). The task is the unit of inference: each contributes $240$ attempted forks over five pretrained checkpoints crossed with two drift directions. The ledger makes counterfactual utility observable for a fixed mechanism, allowing triggers to be judged by the updates they select rather than by surprise detection alone.