In the era of increasingly complex AI models for time series forecasting, progress is often measured by marginal improvements on benchmark leaderboards. However, this approach suffers from a fundamental flaw: standard evaluation metrics conflate a model's performance with the data's intrinsic unpredictability. To address this pressing challenge, we introduce a novel, predictability-aligned diagnostic framework grounded in spectral coherence. Our framework makes two primary contributions: the Spectral Coherence Predictability (SCP), a computationally efficient ($O(N\log N)$) and task-aligned score that quantifies the inherent difficulty of a given forecasting instance, and the Linear Utilization Ratio (LUR), a frequency-resolved diagnostic tool that precisely measures how effectively a model exploits the linearly predictable information within the data. We validate our framework's effectiveness and leverage it to reveal two core insights. First, we provide the first systematic evidence of "predictability drift", demonstrating that a task's forecasting difficulty varies sharply over time. Second, our evaluation reveals a key architectural trade-off: complex models are superior for low-predictability data, whereas linear models are highly effective on more predictable tasks. We advocate for a paradigm shift, moving beyond simplistic aggregate scores toward a more insightful, predictability-aware evaluation that fosters fairer model comparisons and a deeper understanding of model behavior.