Partial-Revelation Panel Forecasting: Predictive Information Gain, Allocation, and Coarsening-Consistent Operators

Research agents explain planned experiments. We measure predictive credit with paired forecasts sharing an intervention, forecaster, and outcome while varying description, matched explanation, and donor context. Five checks track commitment, delivery, predictive gain, alignment, and known-signal uptake. Across 336 prospective states in controlled learning, 12 Tox21 endpoints, and 24 OpenML tasks, v5's frozen credit decision was inconclusive. Tox21's preregistered ROC AUC interval-score harm test was unmet ($D-M=-.0026$, 95 percent interval [$-.0174$, .0104]); OpenML's joint formation, point-equivalence, and repeatability rule was unmet. Matched point-accuracy gains over description remained unconfirmed, and Tox21/OpenML seed-donor intervals spanned zero. Under requested DeepSeek V4 Pro, matched and donor cards reduced secondary Tox21 drift by 64.5 and 59.1 percent. A DeepSeek V4 Flash replay raised matched point MAE from .01823 to .02020 and missed matched-donor interval-score equivalence. OpenML full-card assignment widened nominal 80 percent intervals by 21 percent, with 49.3 percent coverage versus 51.4 percent for description and content in 66/144 cards. Direct-text Flash delivered all 144 notes without detectable matched point-accuracy gain. A researcher-authored mechanism positive control lowered point MAE by 2.60 percentage points versus description. The protocol measures predictive credit for research-agent benchmarks and scientific forecasting; natural-explanation credit remained unconfirmed at the tested donor resolutions.

A selective predictor acts as a safety gate: it returns an output only when the prediction appears sufficiently trustworthy. Deployments increasingly require this reliability to be certified at a target precision for every reporting unit of interest, such as a tool, policy label, or patient subgroup. The main difficulty is often not whether a granted certificate is valid, but whether finite calibration data can produce one at all. As the gate becomes safer or more fine-grained, some units may receive too little evidence to certify. We make this notion of availability computable through classical exact-binomial inversion and formulate reporting-partition selection, under a fixed group order, as a dynamic program that exposes the trade-off among safety, granularity, and served traffic. The resulting frontier reveals a large population opportunity that finite-sample estimation nearly erases: a truth-informed planner gains $0.157$ mean coverage over support balancing, whereas a naive estimator recovers only $0.005$, making recovery from finite data the central challenge. Constructing candidate partitions on one planning split and selecting among them on another recovers part of this gap, improving mean coverage over support balancing by $0.060$, with the direction reproduced in $59$ of $60$ model effects across three intent-routing datasets and two architectures. A complementary validity-preserving lever, reallocating the familywise error budget across reporting units, recovers additional coverage both with population quantities and noisy estimates. The same frontier recurs, with predictor-specific ceilings, across LLM tool-calling, content moderation, lesion classification, and recommendation. Certified availability is therefore a plannable deployment resource that determines when a safety gate can be certified, at what granularity, and over how much traffic.

LLM judge panels are a standard evaluation tool, but prior work reports highly correlated panel errors: nine judges provide roughly the effective information of two independent ones, and aggregation closes only a small fraction of the gap. A natural remedy--a signal from a different evidence source, e.g., executing a test suite--produced no distinguishable change in the panel's effective-vote count at scale (-0.04, 95% CI [-0.10, +0.02]). Aggregate dependence and conditional decision utility are different questions. Elementary majority arithmetic fixes the affected set for single-ballot substitution: only decisions with a one-vote margin can change. The empirical question is whether panel error rates rise and useful substitutions concentrate there. They do: the entire accuracy gain concentrates on these pivotal queries, where it is large (+10.4 to +23.3 percentage points across three headline configurations), and is exactly zero elsewhere. We confirm the pattern across three code benchmarks and four panel sizes (a 9-judge extension and 56 dependent subsampling checks, gain +6.5 to +16.1 percentage points). On HumanEval+/MBPP+, a majority-side replacement rule raises overall accuracy from 82.44% to 85.62% while invoking the signal on 16.2% of queries; signal-only remains stronger at 87.60%. Thus population-level dependence diagnostics and margin-stratified utility are complementary, and the affected-set characterization yields a call-reduction rule for any specified single-ballot substitution policy.