AI models trained on the same data can disagree about patient risk, with disagreement potentially concentrated in clinically important subgroups. We propose V(S), a statistically grounded vulnerability index combining an observable lower-bound witness of model disagreement with clinical severity, and develop inference and multiplicity-adjustment procedures for auditing prespecified subgroups. We applied the framework to two large critical-care cohorts, MIMIC-IV (n = 65,078) for model development and eICU-CRD (n = 188,230 admissions, 208 hospitals) for external validation, comparing a random forest with logistic regression across 158 prespecified subgroups. The two primary models did not both satisfy the prespecified epsilon = 0.02 Rashomon-set tolerance: the logistic-regression AUC was 0.0488 below the best candidate-model AUC. The RF-LR discrimination gap is thus interpreted as disagreement between two specific models, not as a guaranteed lower bound on the full Rashomon set. Nine subgroups had discrimination gaps distinguishable from a prespecified clinical floor. The age >=80 and cardiac subgroup had the largest point estimate of V(S) (0.307), but was underpowered and did not meet the full high-priority decision rule. The univariate cardiac subgroup (V(S) = 0.193, 95% CI [0.163, 0.223]) was the only statistically distinguishable subgroup with adequate power. Post hoc analyses identified lactate as important for both models but did not establish a causal explanation for the disagreement. Four simulation studies quantified operating characteristics of the proposed procedures, including inflated small-sample detection rates and imperfect Wald-interval coverage. The framework offers a reproducible approach for ranking subgroup vulnerability to model disagreement while separating exploratory signals from adequately supported findings.

翻译：暂无翻译