AI systems increasingly produce investment recommendations, yet the usual evaluations ask the wrong question. Realized return is noisy and easy to overfit, and agreement with a reference portfolio can reward advice that cannot be executed. We argue that an AI-generated recommendation should first be audited as an executable financial action, and only then judged on return. We make this concrete with a deterministic, replayable baseline and a protocol that scores any advisor on three properties a single number conflates: validity under portfolio and fee constraints, stability across repeated runs, and agreement with the baseline. These properties separate cleanly, and agreement is the most misleading in isolation: across a 120-scenario bank, the control that agrees most with the baseline (0.94) is admissible in only 0.58 of its runs, so agreement certifies an invalid action in 42% of them. On an adversarial set, two frontier models are admissible in barely half of their bare-prompt runs and fail on order arithmetic, not judgment; supplying the fee arithmetic deterministically lifts both to near-perfect validity. We make no alpha claim: the baseline is a transparent verifier whose guardrails follow from the fee schedule and whose decisions replay from frozen inputs, and every figure and table regenerates offline from the artifact.

翻译：暂无翻译