Resample or Reroute? Recoverable Stopping Debt Without Identified Action Selection
TL;DR
After a weak verifier accepts a large-language-model response, a second call may resample or reroute, but current evidence does not identify when to resample rather than reroute, so stopping debt exists, but current evidence does not identify when to resample rather than reroute.
Abstract
After a weak verifier accepts a large-language-model response, a second call may resample or reroute. Because correctness is hidden, action selection is an identification problem. We order three gates: recoverable stopping debt, two-sided FIT action support, and held-out value from an outcome-blind selector. In a pinned 152-query MBPP+ experiment, a Qwen2.5-14B Base-only false-positive stop leaves +2.592 percentage points of Qwen2.5-7B recovery (query-cluster 95% interval [+1.618, +3.664]). Separately, after 7B Base-test rejection, fixed escalation to 14B exceeds leave-one-out 7B resampling by +2.882 points [+0.931, +5.201]; this is fixed-action ranking, not conditional selection. An all-episode audit produces a +2.697-point realized-maximum gap, but for two actions this statistic equals (1/2)E|Delta| - (1/2)|E Delta| and contains no observable-history term. It lies inside an exact-fold exchangeable reference (mean +3.158; 95% interval [+2.434, +3.947]). The audit unconditionally acts on 1,520 episodes: 1,240 observable stops and 280 verifier rejections; 198 stops are evaluator-only false positives. Neither tested outcome-blind controller improves on fixed rerouting. A separate LiveCodeBench ladder has all-zero FIT action advantages despite exclusive TEST rescues. A preregistered BigCodeBench support gate then finds only 23/19 and 22/19 signed episodes/queries against minima of 25/20, so L1-L4, DEV, and TEST stay unopened. Stopping debt exists, but current evidence does not identify when to resample rather than reroute.