Internal self-consistency cannot certify the accuracy of a photogrammetric reconstruction, and the failure is structural rather than a matter of tuning. This matters because hold-out self-validation scores are increasingly offered as quality evidence for metric deliverables whose correctness is otherwise unknown without an external survey. We formalise a track-leakage-free hold-out protocol: a deterministic image subset is withheld, and each withheld view is re-localised against only those 3D points supported by two or more retained images, so no view is tested against structure it helped create. We evaluate it on five GNSS-referenced captures across four sites, 13 ETH3D scenes, a EuRoC flight and 30 IMC 2025 scenes. The protocol is well-posed but does not measure accuracy. It saturates: the internal confidence score stays pinned at 1.00 while true error swings 14.1x within one capture. It is blind to coherent distortion: fragmenting corruption is caught, but internally self-consistent, globally distorted models are not, and were wrong by 55-106 m at confidence 1.00 at three of four captures. On IMC 2025 it separates failed from successful reconstructions (rho = 0.68) yet ranks nothing among the successful (rho = 0.01). Track-leakage-free hold-out measures internal geometric consistency: a fragmentation warning, not a substitute for control-point accuracy assessment.
Geo-spatial rasters of building footprint area are useful for a variety of tasks, such as monitoring urbanization, improving energy efficiency, and tracking greenhouse gas emissions. There are now multiple global building raster datasets, however there lacks an independent, comprehensive, and fair assessment of their accuracy. In this work, we evaluate the accuracy of four major global building products: Global Human Settlement Layer (GHSL), Microsoft's TEMPO (TEMPO), The Global Building Atlas (GBA), and Overture. As ground truth for assessing their accuracy, we use ORBITaL-Net, a globally diverse dataset of manually labeled building footprints. To ensure fairness, we evaluate products on grids of multiple spatial resolutions, and several conventional performance metrics. Our results indicate that either GBA or TEMPO generally achieves the highest overall accuracy, depending upon the particular evaluation criteria. We also stratify the accuracy of each product by several factors: geographic location, population density, and income groups. The results reveal that product accuracy can sometimes vary significantly with respect to these factors. Notably, all products are significantly less accurate in Africa and Asia. Most products also suffer significant accuracy reduction in high-density urban areas.