Test-Time Scaling in the Wild: Why Exploitation, Not Exploration, Is the Bottleneck

Test-time scaling (TTS) improves language model outputs by spending additional inference compute — generating multiple candidates, searching over partial sequences, or iteratively refining drafts. These techniques yield large gains on mathematics and code, but have been developed and stress-tested almost exclusively on tasks where verification is straightforward. We conduct the first compute-normalised comparison of five TTS families across five open-ended generation benchmarks spanning medicine, law, finance, general chat, and creative writing — grounded in a unified framework that decomposes the effectiveness of each method's token budget into exploration and exploitation. The answer depends on which side of that decomposition you examine. Scaling exploration works: the best candidate in the pool improves steadily with compute across all settings. What breaks is exploitation — the step that converts a rich candidate pool into a final output. With state-of-the-art generators, reward models correlate at only $\hat{\rho}_v$ $\approx$ 0.12 with true quality, rendering selection near-random regardless of budget. Tree search amplifies this failure through diversity collapse. Refinement helps on one of five benchmarks; its apparent gains elsewhere are confounded. Only synthesis across candidates (Fusion) consistently improves over single-sample baselines, yet still recovers only ${\sim}$40% of available quality.The candidate pool is not the bottleneck — choosing from it is.