Reliable scene understanding requires deciding which predictions to trust, retain, or inspect. In semantic segmentation, component failure predictors support these decisions, but their predictive performance does not fully describe the value of the resulting selection. We develop a decision-centered evaluation framework that connects three questions: what an available score predicts, what can be learned from its existing fields, and what its ranking delivers. Across three segmentation systems on Cityscapes and ACDC at 90% retention, adapted MetaSeg reduces retained failure relative to forecast entropy in all twelve architecture-population comparisons, but does not establish a failure advantage over direct probability ranking. Image-nested source experiments reveal a different opportunity: reusing the full field set improves predictive and retained-loss performance under both learners in all three systems, while the raw OCRNet probe improves prediction with unresolved selective gains. Mapping a fixed prediction pair to conditional log-loss risk produces mixed selection effects, which we examine through the components exchanged by the two rankings. These findings distinguish the performance of a fitted score from the value obtainable from its inputs and the consequences of its use. The framework provides a practical basis for deciding whether to adopt an additional score, relearn existing fields, or revise a selection rule, and for explaining the gains and failures of component-level reliability methods.

翻译：暂无翻译