1\section{Conclusion}2\label{sec:conclusion}34At a 20-trading-day horizon, on a 2013--2026 panel of U.S. listed firms with a strictly point-in-time information set,5one-minute OHLCV features change the out-of-sample log loss of forecasts of an adverse operating-income surprise by6\dlogBFivevsBTwo{} [\lologBFivevsBTwo, \hilogBFivevsBTwo] (logistic) and \dligLBFivevsLBTwo{} [\loligLBFivevsLBTwo,7\hiligLBFivevsLBTwo] (gradient-boosted trees) relative to a daily-market-and-accounting benchmark whose own increment8over accounting data is \dligLBTwovsLBOne. The gain from one-minute sampling is zero within intervals that are narrower than the pre-registered9minimum detectable difference for the boosted family and comparable to it for the logistic family; it is zero at every horizon from forty days to one day, for every10accounting target, in every subgroup and refit year, and on unseen firms. The small incremental content that the11one-minute signal carries is inconsistent with the frictions mechanism (it lives in large, levered firms), is already12impounded in prices by the cutoff, and has no economic value after factor adjustment and costs. The bracketed fields13of the question we set out to answer are therefore filled with a measured null.1415Two limits bound the claim. The accounting panel contains only firms listed at the end of the sample, so the result16speaks to survivors; a delisted-fundamentals backfill, which the vendor appears to support, is the first extension.17Point-in-time availability is the vendor's filing-date-plus-one-day policy on current (possibly restated) values; a18filing-level reconstruction from SEC data would allow an as-originally-reported specification. Neither limit affects19the cross-frequency comparison, which is the object of the paper, but both affect the level of predictability and the20base rate of severe deterioration.2122Three directions follow. First, the daily increment is large and its composition (returns, volatilities, volume23ratios, illiquidity) deserves the same frequency-controlled scrutiny at the weekly and monthly scale: where between the24quarter and the day does market anticipation of fundamentals actually form? Second, quote data would allow the25mechanisms that bars cannot see, order imbalance and spreads, to be tested with the same point-in-time design; the26present result predicts that they too would be summarised by the daily close at a 20-day horizon, a prediction worth27falsifying. Third, the pipeline, the frozen design and the leakage battery are reusable for any forecasting question28that joins market and accounting clocks; we release them with the hashed manifests needed to reproduce every exhibit29from the pinned dataset versions.30