Remaining useful life (RUL) estimates support reliability and maintenance decisions only if both point accuracy and prediction intervals remain trustworthy when operating conditions change. Convenient mixed splits can hide that failure. This paper studies the question on a documented 10-bearing PHME subset with time-varying load and speed. Derived load-speed regimes define the held-out evaluation units, while models receive only measured load and speed as context. A calibrated predictive-representation model fuses raw vibration windows, engineered descriptors, and operating context, then forms intervals by empirical residual calibration. Under strict train/validation/calibration/test separation, the model reaches normalized MAE 0.1477, empirical 90% coverage 0.900, and retrospective absolute-step MAE 285.26; a 400-tree random forest reaches 0.1538, 0.871, and 294.57. The results do not show uniform dominance: conditional diagnostics expose non-uniform reliability, including 0.666 coverage in a low-load/high-speed cell, and a post-hoc pooled regime-conditioned residual diagnostic raises that cell to 0.941 only as motivation for future pre-specified conditional calibration. Stress tests further identify raw-channel loss as the largest tested reliability failure mode. The contribution is therefore a bounded reliability-evaluation protocol for the processed 10-bearing subset, with conditional undercoverage and raw-channel loss reported explicitly as failure modes rather than deployment guarantees.

翻译：暂无翻译