Encrypted traffic classification infers semantics beyond the flow record from transport-layer observables, and supervised training rests on labels that hold for the individual flow they are attached to. Recent systematizations scrutinize model in- puts and data splits; we systematize the complementary label side. Across 14 audited benchmark entries, we identify two recurring label-side strategies: coarse inheritance, which risks labelling flows the evidence does not cover, and overstrict filtering, which keeps only self-attesting flows and risks dis- carding relevant ones. No audited entry exposes a countable pre-selection population, and the task objects downstream papers attach to the same labels disagree with the recovered record in 8 of 23 referenced cells. Under strict side-channel features we derive a representation-relative ceiling on bal- anced accuracy for any classifier restricted to those features: on the public benchmarks that inherit, it ranges from 0.56 to 0.76. On the filtering side, only 24.95% of connections in our fully captured corpus carry an observable SNI of their own; yet the discarded connections raise macro accuracy from 0.44 to 0.65 through same-run co-occurrence features. We end with recommendations for benchmark builders and users.
Automated segmentation of cervical-spine MRI is increasingly used in clinical workflows, yet no fairness audit exists for this anatomy. We show that auditing these segmentation tasks is complicated by a common property of modern segmentation datasets: expert-annotated gold labels are expensive, so abundant machine-generated (silver) labels are added to limit annotation cost. This matters because the reference used to judge a model can itself be biased. In this study, we present the first fairness audit of cervical-spine MRI segmentation across sex, age, and race using the CSpineSeg dataset. We observe that the deployed model is demographically fair, but the choice of reference label, however, is not neutral. Because a dataset's silver labels are generated by a model trained on its gold labels, any new model trained on those same gold labels agrees more with the silver labels than with expert truth: scoring identical predictions against silver rather than gold overestimates performance by ~8 Dice points and turns the fairness verdict for age from non-significant to significant - not by the gap inflation Parikh et al. report (which we term false magnitude) but by collapsing within-group variance (which we term false confidence). Reference-label provenance is thus a first-order confounder in segmentation evaluation: performance and fairness should be reported against expert labels, and any fairness claim stated together with the provenance of its reference.