Classical noisy-label theory predicts that downstream performance under weak supervision is bounded above by the labeler's accuracy, implying a sharp crossover: once a gold-trained classifier matches the labeler, weak labels stop helping and start hurting. The prediction is theoretical; what is missing is a benchmark calibration that turns it into an instance-level statement for modern foundation-model labelers. We provide such a calibration for BiomedCLIP-generated weak labels on three medical-imaging benchmarks (PCAM, ISIC, NIH-CXR) and six downstream architectures spanning an 11x parameter range. The crossover predicted by theory appears at ng~100 on PCAM, 20-50 on ISIC, and 250-500 on NIH-CXR; weak labels above the crossover degrade AUC by up to -0.10. The location is architecture-invariant for four of five pretrained architectures, and a within-family DenseNet sweep (2.5x parameters, identical pretraining) supports the view that the labeler, not the student, is the dominant constraint. The calibration in turn produces a decision rule operable from 10-20 gold labels: compare gold-only AUC to VLM accuracy on the user's gold set. A structured-vs-random noise sign flip on NIH-CXR shows that the rate-only formulation of the bound is incomplete and identifies a concrete refinement (label-space projection) that future benchmarks can be designed to test.