What would a diagnostic test need to measure to expose whether failure comes from search laziness rather than conceptual impossibility?

This is a sophisticated question about distinguishing between two kinds of failure modes—and the preprints speak directly to it.

The core diagnostic challenge you're asking about is: how do you tell whether an AI system (or any solver) is *failing to search thoroughly enough* versus *hitting a genuine conceptual barrier*?

The answer lies in granular performance layering under varied probing schemes [AG-2026.04-565]. Here's why:

Search laziness leaves fingerprints. If a solver fails only because it didn't explore deeply enough, then:

• Adding *computational budget* (more time, more rollouts, more reasoning steps) should improve performance [AG-2025.06-1078].
• Decomposing a hard problem into checkpoint subtasks should show the solver succeeding on pieces while failing on the whole [AG-2025.09-1139].
• Providing intermediate scaffolding—explicit hints about reasoning structure—should unlock performance jumps [AG-2026.04-565].

In contrast, conceptual impossibility shows differently:

• Extra search budget yields no improvement, because the solver lacks the representational machinery to even formulate the right question.
• Subproblems remain unsolved even when isolated.
• The solver succeeds on "explicit derivations within stable conceptual frames" but fails when tasks require "reconstruction of omitted reasoning steps or reorganization of representations under global consistency constraints" [AG-2026.04-565]—a signature that the gap is structural, not computational.

A concrete diagnostic: The TPBench and CritPt benchmarks [AG-2025.09-1139, AG-2025.02-240] separate problems by difficulty and decompose them hierarchically. If a model solves the checkpoints but fails the full research-level problem despite "test-time scaling" (intensive search at inference time), you've isolated a reasoning integration failure—conceptual, not lazy [AG-2025.06-1078].

The five-level grading rubric in the QFT/string theory study is the gold standard here: it separates statement correctness (retrieval), concept awareness (shallow understanding), reasoning chain presence (scaffolded logic), tacit step reconstruction (unguided conceptual work), and enrichment (synthesis). Failures at levels 4–5 despite success at 1–3 indicate conceptual, not search, limitations [AG-2026.04-565].

None of these preprints directly addresses how to design a diagnostic test, so this answer reconstructs the methodology from their evaluation frameworks rather than citing a direct methodology paper.