We study counterfactual protocol evaluation: whether data collected under a realised observation protocol determine the predictive value of alternatives that were never deployed. Protocol value is the population $R^2$ of the Bayes-optimal predictor of a fixed trajectory-level target from the measurements an alternative would collect. We show that even infinite benchmark data need not determine this value: distinct latent covariance structures can induce the same benchmark measurement--target law while assigning different values to the same alternative. We develop a value-specific identification theory in which only latent ambiguity that changes the alternative's value matters. For linear targets, invisible covariance directions certify non-identification, while targeted measurements can restore identification without recovering the full latent covariance; an exact permutation construction extends the result to nonlinear aggregate targets. With finite dense calibration data, uniform error bounds control protocol-selection regret and distinguishable value gaps. Exact marginal gains then support cost-constrained, target-aware observation design. Simulations and retrospective analyses of Sleep-EDF and Long-Term AF show that broad temporal-layout differences can be more reliably distinguished than fine placements selected from finite data. Together, these results connect identification, calibration resolution and observation design for undeployed protocols.
Machine-learning benchmarks often pair a label that aggregates a long temporal horizon with input observed through one or a few short windows. Their apparent performance ceiling may therefore be an acquisition-protocol ceiling rather than a model-capacity ceiling. We study labels of the form $\Theta_{g,T}=T^{-1}\int_0^T g\{Z(t)\}\,\mathrm{d}t$ when the latent Gaussian process contains both a stable individual trait and a correlated within-individual state. An exact protocol-conditioned Bayes-risk identity provides a common tool. First, we decompose label variance into an $O(1)$ trait component and an $O(T^{-1})$ state component, explaining why a snapshot can retain cross-sectional predictability while poorly tracking within-person change. Second, we derive task-dependent effective temporal spans: mean labels depend on the ordinary correlation time, whereas occupation-time labels depend on an entire spectrum of higher-order correlation times. Third, state-driven occupation-label variance is maximal when the stable trait lies at the threshold; window efficiency decays much more slowly away from that boundary. Under an equal segment budget, exact risks and Monte Carlo experiments show that repeated segments at one time rapidly saturate, whereas temporally dispersed observations continue to increase state explainability. The trait ceiling uses quantities available from ordinary test-retest data; only the state ceiling requires short-lag temporal calibration. The results distinguish architectural limits from protocol limits and show that the label, rather than duration or segment count alone, defines the relevant timescale.
