AI 中文总结
该研究通过量化交易系统案例揭示结果与诊断的差距，提出区分冻结实例、自适应程序和临时开发，并设计前瞻性生产绑定协议以解决持续演化系统中的因果归因问题。
AI 中文摘要
现实可能确认某个结果已经发生，却无法识别是哪个演化中的过程产生了该结果，以及为何产生。这一区别在生产级机器学习系统中至关重要，因为此类系统的代码、配置和工件会不断变化，同时外部反馈持续累积。我们在一个由人类指导、智能体工程化的量化交易系统中对此进行了考察，其中“预言机”指外部已实现结果的来源，而非完整的正确性规范。在一年期间，该账户获得了收益并跑赢了广泛的市场指数，但在主要回顾性规范下，年度阿尔法在统计上与零无显著差异。回顾性选择的子期间包括不利的相对表现，以及在声明的近似参考下的条件性候选层级弱点。工程记录记录了该时段内的变更，且完整的推荐到运行时绑定不可用。该档案未确立一个共同的冻结实例或唯一原因。该案例引出了“结果-诊断差距”：结果证据、被评估对象的身份和因果解释支持不同的主张。我们区分了冻结实例、预先指定的自适应程序和临时开发；组织了档案相对主张的可识别性和证据层级；并提出了一个前瞻性的生产绑定协议。一个说明性的兼容历史示例展示了事实绑定如何解决推荐项的指称，而无需提供其反事实效应。该协议是提议性的，而非前瞻性验证的。外部反馈约束了结果主张，而来源和额外的识别结构决定了诊断的解析。
英文摘要
Reality may establish that an outcome occurred without identifying which evolving procedure produced it or why. This distinction matters in production ML systems whose code, configuration, and artifacts change while external feedback accumulates. We examine it in a human-directed, agent-engineered quantitative trading system, using oracle to mean an external source of realized outcomes rather than a complete correctness specification. Across one year, the account gained and outperformed a broad market index, while annual alpha was not statistically distinguishable from zero under the main retrospective specification. Retrospectively selected subperiods include adverse relative performance and conditional candidate-level weakness under declared approximate references. Engineering records document changes during the episode, and complete recommendation-to-runtime binding is unavailable. The archive does not establish a common frozen instance or a unique cause. The case motivates an outcome--diagnosis gap: outcome evidence, evaluated-object identity, and causal explanation support distinct claims. We distinguish frozen instances, pre-specified adaptive procedures, and ad-hoc development; organize archive-relative claim identifiability and an evidence hierarchy; and propose a prospective production-binding protocol. An illustrative compatible-history example shows how factual binding can resolve a recommendation's referent without supplying its counterfactual effect. The protocol is proposed rather than prospectively validated. External feedback constrains outcome claims, while provenance and additional identification structure determine the resolution of diagnosis.
Comments38 pages, 14 figures, 9 tables. Supplementary Dataset S1: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.23215521. Follow-up to arXiv:2604.11477
