Certifying What Helps Customer-Return Timing: A Screen-and-Confirm Test for Conditioning Signals, and Why Decay Is Nearly Enough

Practitioners enrich customer-return models with ever more signals (lifetime value, category, recency/frequency, calendar, geography), and the temporal-point-process (TPP) literature follows suit with covariate- and external-covariate-conditioned intensities. But does any of it improve the timing, and how would you know? A null ("feature X doesn't help") is only meaningful if the model could have found a signal. We make two contributions--a method and a measurement--to answer this credibly. (i) A screen-and-confirm protocol that certifies whether a candidate signal improves a TPP's event-timing likelihood: a positive control plants a coupling of known strength and confirms the model recovers it, so a real-data null can be read as "no signal" rather than "weak method." The control is validated for categorical and continuous encodings, and on a real clock-driven dataset (NYC taxi hour-of-day). (ii) A model-free ceiling quantifying how little of customer-return timing is point-predictable at all (a single-digit percentage of gap variance from any covariate; returns are near-memoryless). With these we certify a clean result on three public benchmarks (Amazon, Taobao, RetailRocket) and a real marketplace (Thumbtack): the inter-event clock--continuous-time decay, long known to beat frozen-intensity models--is nearly sufficient, and the conditioning the field keeps adding is redundant or harmful on top of it (statistically null on the public benchmarks, at most 0.06 NLL; null to mildly harmful on the marketplace). We do not claim to discover that decay helps; our contribution is the tools that turn "conditioning doesn't help" into a checkable, certified statement--plus an honest-evaluation account of the read-out/leakage pitfalls we hit and retracted.

When Offline Evaluation Misleads: A Diagnostic Protocol for Reward and Policy Selection in Delayed-Feedback Contextual Bandits

Personalizing marketing messages with contextual multi-armed bandits (CMABs) drives real business value, yet the objective that ultimately matters - a downstream conversion - is observed only weeks later, too late to drive online learning. Teams therefore train the bandit on a fast proxy reward, and separately must judge whether a contextual bandit is worth its complexity over sending one best message. Settling both decisions with the usual offline checks - a batch off-policy estimate, a marginal arm-discrimination test, a confidence interval - can mislead systematically under delayed feedback. We give an ordered diagnostic protocol that screens a reward-and-policy candidate on two axes, alignment (does optimizing the reward move the north-star?) and learnability (can the bandit identify the reward-optimal policy?), before trusting any reported lift. We validate it where the truth is known - a public off-policy-evaluation benchmark and a controllable synthetic generator - and illustrate it on a deployed large-marketplace push system (where, with five arms and one split, the evidence is directional rather than powered). Two lessons recur. (N1) A single offline number can mis-rank rewards: a denser reward signal gives the bandit more to learn from, so rewards that look tied in a static estimate pull apart once learning happens online. (N2) If you cannot tell in advance which single message is best, a per-user policy partly just avoids betting on the wrong one - that looks like personalization but is really robustness, so a "personalization premium" is easily overstated. Our contribution is methodological rather than algorithmic: the ordered protocol, the two lessons it surfaces, and the end-to-end experience of applying it to a delayed-feedback CMAB.