Benchmark evaluation across AI and safety-critical domains overwhelmingly relies on simple averaging. We demonstrate that this practice produces substantially misleading rankings when two conditions co-occur: (1) the evaluation matrix is sparse and (2) items vary substantially in difficulty. Through controlled simulation experiments across four domains -- NLP (GLUE), clinical drug trials, autonomous vehicle safety, and cybersecurity -- we show that Spearman rank correlation $ρ$ between simple-average rankings and ground-truth rankings degrades from $ρ= 1.000$ at 100% coverage to $ρ= 0.809$ at 67% coverage with high difficulty heterogeneity (mean over 20 seeds). A standard two-parameter logistic (2PL) Item Response Theory (IRT) model maintains $ρ\geq 0.996$ across all conditions. A 150-condition grid sweep over sparsity $S \in [0, 0.70]$ and difficulty gap $D \in [0.5, 5.0]$ confirms that ranking error forms a failure surface with a strong $S \times D$ interaction ($γ_3 = +0.20$, $t = 13.05$), while IRT maintains $ρ\geq 0.993$ throughout. We discuss implications for Physical AI benchmarking, where evaluation matrices are often incomplete and difficulty gaps are extreme.