Outcome-predictive signals are often treated as promising optimization targets in reinforcement learning, but predictive validity and optimization utility are different claims. We expose this distinction in GuanDan, a multi-round imperfect-information game in which the implication of a round outcome depends on the public match state. Held-out analysis shows that state--gain interactions provide incremental predictive value beyond a constant signed-gain effect, establishing that match progress is predictively meaningful. We then use changes in a frozen match-win predictor, $ΔΦ$, as a controlled round-level supervision intervention in a matched DanZero-style Monte Carlo self-play protocol. The intervention can succeed in an individual lineage: a selected progress-augmented checkpoint substantially outperforms its matched Baseline on a locked evaluation. Yet the method-level result reverses this impression: none of five preregistered replication seeds is positive, the pooled ten-seed interval includes zero, and across-iteration effects repeatedly change sign without a common late-stage advantage. These results identify a predictive--optimization gap: under the studied learner, a signal can describe outcome-relevant progress while failing to provide a reliably beneficial optimization direction.

翻译：暂无翻译