Knowledge graph question answering (KGQA) and knowledge-graph-based retrieval-augmented generation (KG-RAG) aim to ground answers in explicit graph evidence, but real-world knowledge graphs are often sparse, outdated, and incomplete. Existing robustness evaluations usually report aggregate changes in answer quality after evidence is removed or perturbed, which measures sensitivity to incomplete support but leaves the source of degradation under-specified: the same score change can conflate the type of missing evidence, the response of the evaluated system, and the sensitivity of the answer-matching protocol. To address this gap, we propose \textbf{MissDiag}, a diagnostic evaluation framework for incomplete-knowledge robustness in KGQA and KG-RAG. MissDiag keeps the question and gold answer fixed while applying structurally typed missingness interventions to benchmark-provided support graphs, enabling paired comparisons that decompose robustness changes by evidence type, system response, and evaluation protocol rather than reducing them to a single aggregate score drop. Experiments across multiple system families show that incomplete-knowledge robustness is better understood as a typed degradation phenomenon than as a uniform property: answer-adjacent evidence loss produces the largest observed degradation, source-context removal is often neutral and can be beneficial, and semantic answer matching changes absolute scores while preserving the main typed degradation patterns. By transforming aggregate robustness measurement into typed diagnostic attribution, MissDiag provides a more interpretable basis for comparing, diagnosing, and stress-testing KGQA and KG-RAG systems under incomplete knowledge.
Computational mental health (CMH) classifiers often degrade under distribution shift because human annotators and distant-supervision pipelines reward different linguistic signals. We introduce TSS (Triple-Stream Stress probe), a multi-channel diagnostic framework that decomposes text into (A) lexical character n-grams, (B) a small, mostly content-free morpho-syntactic channel, and (C) a 154-feature psycholinguistic style channel. Across four English datasets (N=12,906), TSS reveals a lexical interference effect: adding lexical features to the style channel reduces Macro-F1 on human-labeled data (mean drop 0.072, p<10^-4) but not on auto-labeled data. We propose Degree of Divergence (DoD), a difference-in-differences statistic adapted from econometrics for label-source auditing, with instance-level bootstrap inference; the headline estimate is DoD(BC-A) = 0.0374, 95% CI [0.0097, 0.0651], p=0.0032. A platform-stratified Twitter-only DoD (which removes the Reddit vs. Twitter contrast) reproduces the pattern with bootstrap inference: DoD-Tw(BC-A) = +0.096 (p<0.001) and DoD-Tw(AC-A) = -0.089 (p<0.001). Interventional masking (pos_only) retains ~95-99% of Channel C's performance after destroying content words on human datasets, indicating that the style channel does not rely primarily on lexical surface form. TSS is positioned as a diagnostic audit framework, not a clinical screening tool: it flags label-source-specific shortcut learning before generalization claims are made.