Can Scene Text Recognition Read Rare Compositions?
Scene text recognition is reported as 89--97% accurate on the six standard benchmarks, and the problem is widely treated as saturated. We present an alternative reading. When the same test images are stratified jointly by ground-truth word rarity and character n-gram novelty against a reference corpus, accuracy at the rare-word x rare-trigram corner of the resulting 5x5 grid drops 10--18 pt below the q3/q3 centre across nine English specialised recognisers, and the same direction (corner below centre) holds on all 13 of 13 (language, model) pairs we test across four writing systems (Latin, Han, Han+kana, Arabic). The drop is not a capacity bottleneck. A 6x vision-backbone scale-up (CLIP4STR-Base 158M -> CLIP4STR-Huge 1.0B, OpenCLIP ViT-H/14 LAION-2B) leads every benchmark in aggregate accuracy yet leaves the stress corner unchanged (86.9 -> 86.5, within paired-bootstrap noise). Four converging probes--layer-wise probing, confidence-when-wrong, attention re-balancing, and a cross-script commit-vs-abstain error split--localise the failure to the autoregressive decoder's lexical prior. We then ask how much of the gap existing techniques recover. Of 16 non-architectural mitigations, the largest mean q5/q5 gain is +1.3 pt and none clears the paired-bootstrap noise floor; the only intervention that does is the architectural shift from autoregressive to CTC decoding (SVTRv2, +2.5 pt, p=0.02, n=474). A confidence-routed AR-CTC ensemble adds a directionally consistent +0.6 pt that stays within noise, and its dominant learned coefficient is each model's own minimum-softmax confidence--independently echoing the mechanism above. No configuration we test improves both the compositional corner and aggregate accuracy. The rare-input long tail thus points to architectural change rather than added capacity.