Below what training size do deep tabular generators stop beating trivial baselines? A preregistered benchmark on a size ladder of clinical and standard datasets

Deep tabular generative models are benchmarked on datasets with tens of thousands of rows; clinical datasets have hundreds. We preregistered and ran a size-ladder benchmark to find where the two regimes diverge: 8 public datasets subsampled from 200 to 20,000 training rows, seven generators (independent marginals, Gaussian copula, SMOTE, unconditional SMOTE, CTGAN, TVAE, TabDDPM) with a fixed 20-trial tuning budget and 5 evaluation seeds, plus 4 natively small clinical datasets at true size, for 2,220 committed runs in total. The primary metric is the AUROC of fixed classifiers trained on synthetic and tested on real data. In 23 of 24 (dataset, deep model) pairs no deep model ever beats the best trivial baseline by more than seed noise, at any training size we measured. The best baseline wins 40 of 49 (dataset, size) cells. Our preregistered prediction that the deep models' ranking would be unstable at small sizes is falsified: mean Kendall tau between adjacent rungs below 5,000 rows is 0.806, above our 0.8 threshold, and stability is highest at the smallest sizes rather than lowest. One caveat bounds all of this: in 81% of cells the gap between the top two methods is smaller than the variation between seeds. Finally, method rankings on natively small clinical datasets agree only moderately with rankings on subsampled large ones (mean tau 0.57 to 0.64), which questions whether a subsampled large dataset can stand in for a small one. All 2,220 result files, the preregistration and its hash, and the code that regenerates every figure and number from those files are public.