From Checker to Forecaster: Code-Owned Evaluation of Model-Generated Strategic Routes Under Delayed Ground Truth

Jul 16, 2026

Many evaluations of model outputs rely on deterministic contracts checkable at scoring time or feedback that arrives within the operating loop. This work studies the complementary regime where ground truth is delayed, censored, or private, so correctness cannot be verified by deterministic code during evaluation. RouteCast evaluates competing typed strategic routes by producing an auditable provisional forecast-ranking and deferring outcome scoring. A retrospective pilot on 21 binary cases reports preliminary discrimination, compares LLM judge baselines, and includes a preregistered decomposition ablation showing no distinguishable advantage.

LanguageEnglish

CategoryResearch & Report

FormatPDF

Pages11

Reading Time28 min

Abstract

Introduction

Contributions

RouteCast Framework and Protocol

Retrospective Pilot and Results

Feature Comparison

From Checker to Forecaster: Code-Owned Evaluation of Model-Generated Strategic Routes Under Delayed Ground Truth Aleh Manchuliantsau Independent Researcher [aleh. manchuliantsau@gmail. com](aleh. manchuliantsau@gmail. com) Version 1.0: July 2026 arXiv :2607 . 10972v 1 [ cs .AI] 13 Jul 2026 Abstract Many evaluations of model outputs rely either on contracts checkable at evaluation time or on feedback that arrives within the operating loop. We study the complementary setting in which ground truth is delayed, censored, or private, so deterministic code cannot check correctness at scoring time and must instead issue a code-owned provisional forecast. RouteCast instantiates this regime for model-generated typed strategic routes: models propose candidate routes and structured factors; point-in-time evidence, reference classes, and deterministic transformations produce a provisional forecast-ranking; later outcomes evaluate the forecast. In a retrospective venture pilot on 21 binary-outcome cases (6 positive, 15 negative), the whole-packet RouteCast score showed preliminary retrospective discrimination (AUC 0.756, 95% CI [0 .471 , 0.980]), while a blind LLM judge reached AUC 0.678 [0 .419 , 0.897] and an identity-exposed LLM judge reached AUC 0.761 [0 .515 , 0.944], consistent with recognition- or outcomerelated leakage risk. A preregistered decomposition ablation on the same binary subset found that converting the identical inputs into typed staged routes was indistinguishable from the whole-packet score (∆AUC = −0 . 144, 95% CI [−0 .471 , 0. 176]) and from a deterministic heuristic (∆AUC = −0 .089, 95% CI [−0 .412 , 0.278]) . The pilot establishes an auditable feasibility result and exposes failure modes; it does not establish prospective calibration, causal decision improvement, route-decomposition advantage, or cross-domain validity. 1 Introduction Models increasingly generate strategic options rather than only factual answers. A founder asks which venture route to pursue, a lab asks which research direction might be worth a quarter, and a product team asks which roadmap bet should be made next. These tasks differ from factual question answering because the relevant outcome arrives later, is often censored or private, and may be observed only through a proxy. The evaluator must act before the world can grade the recommendation. Deterministic evaluation of model outputs has so far required either a contract checkable at evaluation time or feedback arriving within the loop. We study the complementary regime—delayed, censored, or private ground truth—in which deterministic code must issue a codeowned provisional forecast whose correctness is unknowable at scoring time. We instantiate this regime for a new evaluation object, competing model-generated typed strategic routes, and audit the protocol’s integrity properties on a retrospective pilot, including an identity-leakage contrast and a preregistered decomposition ablation reported as indistinguishable. The conceptual move is from checker to forecaster. Deterministic code is already used as a checker or control authority in software evaluation, runtime assurance, and evidence-gated control. In the regime studied here, however, correctness is not available at scoring time. Code can own the forecast only by issuing an auditable forecastlike ranking, preserving the information set available at decision time, and later exposing that ranking to outcome resolution. The retrospective pilot therefore asks whether the implementation survives obvious integrity failures. It is not a validation of prospective forecasting authority. The initial implementation domain is venture route selection. RouteCast ranks Wedge–Bridge–Vision trajectories from point-in-time packets. A route packet can contain a current wedge, typed transition claims, evidence, cost-tolearn, a staged-value calculation, and a binding transition to test. RouteCast is defined for competing typed strateg

FAQs

What problem does the checker-to-forecaster framework address?

It targets evaluation settings where ground truth is delayed, censored, or private, making correctness impossible to check at scoring time. Deterministic code must therefore issue an auditable provisional forecast rather than a directly verifiable verdict.

How does RouteCast generate and score model-generated strategic routes?

RouteCast ranks competing typed strategic routes using point-in-time evidence, reference classes, and deterministic transformations to produce a provisional forecast-ranking. Later outcomes resolve the forecast and enable retrospective evaluation.

What did the retrospective pilot find about discrimination and ablation effects?

The whole-packet RouteCast score showed preliminary retrospective discrimination with an AUC of 0.756 (95% CI [0.471, 0.980]). LLM judge baselines reported different AUCs, and a preregistered decomposition ablation on a binary subset found typed-route decomposition indistinguishable from the whole-packet score and a deterministic heuristic.

Jul 16, 2026

Upload by Genevieve