The Price of Choice in Selective Prediction

A selective classifier may be claimed to satisfy a risk-coverage contract if some rule from a predeclared menu (a threshold or a union of $K$ score intervals) attains coverage at least $\kappa$ and error at most $\alpha$. Refuting this existential claim requires ruling out every permitted rule. The intersection-union test (IUT) achieves validity without a multiplicity correction, but its sample cost can increase with menu richness. We characterize this cost and compare it with the optimal audit. For a fixed interior risk target $\alpha$ and gap $\gamma$, the minimax sample size for K-interval menus at coverage floor $\kappa$ is $K(1-\kappa )\mathrm{/}(\kappa {\gamma }^2)$, up to logarithmic factors, in the stated small-gap, large-menu regime; exact IUT attains this rate. The lower bound holds even with a known score distribution, while the upper bound extends to menus of VC dimension $d$. Procedures that refuse to reject whenever any rule appears feasible on the audit sample can pay a linear $K$ cost even when a square-root rate is possible. Reference-free testing reaches a smaller scale under constant-risk alternatives, whereas unknown heterogeneous risks can make the linear cost unavoidable. In simulations with $K=4$, the raw menu cost varies 7.7-fold between $\kappa =.5$ and $\kappa =.95$; after theorem-motivated normalization the endpoint values differ by approximately 5%. Held-out experiments with three VLM judges show positive exact-hiding windows in all 60 split-specific confidence-gate families, with 28/30 contracts chosen on audit-A remaining hidden on untouched audit-B. On a cleaner multi-annotator target, hiding is weaker and transfers in 3/10 resplits. Frozen image and multimodal classifiers show boundary behavior consistent with the IUT guarantee and strong power relative to practical certificates.