When Variance Is Not an Error Map: Calibrated Uncertainty for Radiative Gaussian Splatting in Sparse-View CT

Radiative Gaussian splatting reconstructs sparse-view CT fast and accurately, and recent work attaches per-Gaussian posteriors to yield per-voxel uncertainty maps. We ask what such a map actually measures: posterior variance is a data-constraint map, not an error map -- its alarms are trustworthy, its all-clears are not. Exploiting the strict linearity of X-ray rendering in the per-Gaussian densities, we derive a clamp-aware closed form that the unchanged rasterizer evaluates exactly in one forward pass, in volume and projection space: the infinite-sample limit of the sampling estimator of concurrent work, at 8x lower cost. On the official 15-scene benchmark this uncertainty ranks true error on 14 of 15 scenes. Restricted to the object interior -- the tissue a clinician reads -- the ranking collapses (median Spearman 0.11, 0/15 pass), identically for a deep ensemble and for a strictly positive log-normal posterior: three constructions, two estimator families, no survivors. The mechanism is structural: about 90% of in-object error is bias that reproduces across retrainings, invisible to model disagreement; 73-81% of the full-volume correlation is carried by object/surround contrast; and an exactly solvable control puts the observed in-object ranking 4-5x below what a perfectly calibrated posterior with the same sigma-spread would score. The error scale, by contrast, is an engineering problem, and we solve it: reparameterizing the posterior contracts the cross-scene temperature spread from 19.3x to 2.6x, one scene-agnostic temperature transfers to unseen scenes (10/15 leave-one-scene-out), and the repaired scale tracks photon count at the Poisson-predicted-1/2 power. We distill evaluation practice that would have caught the illusion -- masked calibration, seed-wise bias decomposition, an exact-posterior reference -- and release all protocols, seeds and per-run evidence.