Aggregate reliability estimates can obscure heterogeneity in measurement-design burden across response conditions, so a single G- or D-study may mischaracterize a design's adequacy for particular strata. This study introduces a conditional generalizability framework with three components.

First, automated scoring configurations -- the encoder architectures and scoring-head families admissible within a fixed pipeline -- are treated as a universe of admissible measurement conditions rather than incidental modeling choices. Second, analytical D-study projections are compared with empirical configuration sweeps over a finite scoring pool, yielding two estimands of design adequacy whose agreement or divergence diagnoses the realized configuration universe.

Third, evidence is conditioned on entropy-defined response strata, treating entropy as an operational stratification variable, not a construct claim about writing quality. Whereas recent generalizability-theory extensions address AI-generated item variants on the response side, this framework addresses the analogous scoring-side problem: AI-mediated scoring configurations.

Demonstrated with automated essay scoring of timed L2 writing, the realized design was dependable in aggregate (Phi approx 0.76). Re-estimated within entropy strata, dependability stayed high but declined modestly and robustly (Phi = 0.88, 0.87, 0.84) -- a gradient implying different decision-study requirements, the highest-entropy stratum requiring the most crossed conditions.

The framework offers a portable workflow for evaluating nonuniform dependability.