Imagine you're judging a choir by recording them through a wall. Each singer is real, but the wall adds random noise — and the thinner the wall (more ensemble members), the cleaner the sound. If you only have five singers and a thick wall, you'll rate the choir worse than it actually is. This paper hands you a formula to strip out the wall noise and hear the true harmony, no matter how many singers showed up. The committed claim: an estimator called r∞, built from an unbiased estimate of the predictable signal variance, recovers the correlation between ensemble-mean forecasts and observations as if you had infinite ensemble members. Unlike naïve ensemble-mean correlations, r∞ is independent of ensemble size — it doesn't drift toward zero just because you could only afford 10 members instead of 50. The only requirement is that members are exchangeable (statistically interchangeable draws from a case-specific predictive distribution), not that forecasts and observations share the same distribution. The paper also extends the same unbiased signal variance to the Ratio of Predictable Components (RPC), a diagnostic measuring whether a model's ensemble spread is too narrow or too wide relative to the actual skill. Existing variance-based RPC corrections address only part of the bias; the version here corrects both the model and observational components, yielding an ensemble-size-invariant estimator. Previous forms that correct only the model predictable component remain biased low by a factor depending on ensemble size and signal-to-noise ratio. Architecturally, this is classical statistics — no machine learning, no neural networks. The method belongs to the family of signal-to-noise decomposition techniques common in ensemble verification. It leans on the law of total variance and the assumption of zero correlation between unpredictable noise in individual members and the observed truth. The compute cost is negligible; the real cost is having a well-constructed ensemble in the first place. Integrity is interesting here because the paper is essentially a methods note — it derives estimators and characterises their behaviour analytically. There's no empirical benchmark to cherry-pick; the results are mathematical identities given the stated assumptions. The key vulnerability is whether those assumptions hold in practice: real ensemble members may not be truly exchangeable if they share systematic biases from common forcing, common model code, or common initialization procedures. The milestone question is practical adoption. Climate prediction centres (ECMWF, Met Office, NCEP) routinely publish anomaly correlation coefficients for seasonal and decadal forecasts. If r∞ and the corrected RPC replace naïve estimates in operational verification suites, the field gets more honest skill assessments — especially for the small ensembles (5-20 members) that dominate expensive decadal prediction systems. The gap between where we are (ad hoc ensemble-size corrections applied inconsistently) and where we'd want to be (standardised, unbiased verification across all centres) is procedural, not scientific. The obvious experiment not run: applying r∞ to a large multi-model ensemble archive (e.g., CMIP6 decadal predictions or C3S seasonal forecasts) and showing how published skill scores change. The honest read is (a) — this is a single-author methods note, and the empirical demonstration is a separate, larger project. Expect it in a follow-up or in adoption papers from operational centres.
