Published agent capability scores conflate what a model can do with what its scaffold lets it do, and the magnitude of this elicitation gap is not well characterized under controlled conditions. This study executes a pre-registered controlled comparison of three scaffolds (ReAct, a Planner-Actor-Rater multi-agent design, and planner-then-executor) across five models from three providers (Claude Opus 4.7, Sonnet 4.6, Haiku 4.5; Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview; GPT-5.5) on GAIA validation Levels 1 and 2, holding tasks and conditions fixed, with three attempts per question. Scaffold choice alone moves measured accuracy by as much as 28 percentage points within a single model (Opus, Level 2, robust slice), confirming the pre-registered hypothesis that scaffold variation produces gaps of at least 10 points. The pre-registered prediction that more capable models would be less scaffold-sensitive is rejected in direction: scaffold effects vary significantly by model in every dataset slice, but the most capable Anthropic model gains the most from structured scaffolds at the harder level, and tier-scaling holds only at Level 1 under the robust slice. The multi-agent advantage over ReAct at Level 2 appears within the Anthropic family but not for the cross-provider models, making model family rather than capability tier the conditioning variable, and the predicted planner-executor advantage on file-reading tasks is falsified. Structured scaffolds make fewer tool calls yet recover more often from mid-trajectory errors at the harder level, and a single cell (Gemini with planner-then-executor) is the cheapest at both levels and the most accurate at Level 2. These results indicate that single-scaffold capability numbers are scaffold-conditional estimates and that the elicitation gap is not guaranteed to shrink as models improve.