The development and evaluation of social capabilities in AI agents require complex environments where competitive and cooperative behaviours naturally emerge. While game-theoretic properties can explain why certain teams or agent populations outperform others, more abstract behaviours, such as convention following, are harder to control in training and evaluation settings. The Melting Pot contest is a social AI evaluation suite designed to assess the cooperation capabilities of AI systems. In this paper, we apply a Bayesian approach known as Measurement Layouts to infer the capability profiles of multi-agent systems in the Melting Pot contest. We show that these capability profiles not only predict future performance within the Melting Pot suite but also reveal the underlying prosocial abilities of agents. Our analysis indicates that while higher prosocial capabilities sometimes correlate with better performance, this is not a universal trend-some lower-scoring agents exhibit stronger cooperation abilities. Furthermore, we find that top-performing contest submissions are more likely to achieve high scores in scenarios where prosocial capabilities are not required. These findings, together with reports that the contest winner used a hard-coded solution tailored to specific environments, suggest that at least one top-performing team may have optimised for conditions where cooperation was not necessary, potentially exploiting limitations in the evaluation framework. We provide recommendations for improving the annotation of cooperation demands and propose future research directions to account for biases introduced by different testing environments. Our results demonstrate that Measurement Layouts offer both strong predictive accuracy and actionable insights, contributing to a more transparent and generalisable approach to evaluating AI systems in complex social settings.