Prediction-Powered Inference (PPI) is a popular strategy for combining gold-standard and possibly noisy pseudo-labels to perform statistical estimation. Prior work has shown an asymptotic "free lunch" for PPI++, an adaptive form of PPI, showing that the *asymptotic* variance of PPI++ is always less than or equal to the variance obtained from using gold-standard labels alone. Notably, this result holds *regardless of the quality of the pseudo-labels*. In this work, we demystify this result by conducting an exact finite-sample analysis of the estimation error of PPI++ on the mean estimation problem. We give a "no free lunch" result, characterizing the settings (and sample sizes) where PPI++ has provably worse estimation error than using gold-standard labels alone. Specifically, PPI++ will outperform if and only if the correlation between pseudo- and gold-standard is above a certain level that depends on the number of labeled samples ($n$). In some cases our results simplify considerably: For Gaussian data, the correlation must be at least $1/\sqrt{n - 2}$ in order to see improvement, and a similar result holds for binary labels. In experiments, we illustrate that our theoretical findings hold on real-world datasets, and give insights into trade-offs between single-sample and sample-splitting variants of PPI++.