Abstract: Several corrections of an executable model can fit the same observations while predicting different execution outcomes. We study a repair-to-execution interface that retains compatible finite guard repairs, conditions their weights on diagnostic and ordinary-execution observations, and uses their predictions to choose routes, priced tests, or a backup. On 24 synthetic two-stage devices, an equal mixture of a language-model-generated repair and a uniform belief over compatible repairs (the AI-weighted belief) lowers no-test cost by 2.14 percent relative to committing to the generated repair. Access charges can erase the benefit of diagnosis on isolated tasks, while repeated work can recover it under the AI-weighted belief. With normal-execution learning in every repeated-work arm, workload-valued testing costs 3.33 percent less than same-budget random selection under the AI-weighted belief. Weighting changes the comparison: uniform normal learning costs 540.75 less than AI-weighted normal learning on this cohort, with a device-paired interval excluding zero. Testing recovers part of that gap, but uniform normal learning still has a lower aggregate cost than AI-weighted workload-valued selection. Under uniform beliefs, information-gain selection has the lowest total among the compared selectors, while workload-valued testing costs more than normal learning. These results support retaining alternatives to a generated repair and evaluating diagnostic selection together with repair weighting and learning from execution.