Large language models improve with scale, yet feedback-based alignment still exhibits systematic deviations from intended behavior. Motivated by bounded rationality in economics and cognitive science, we view judgment as resource-limited and feedback as a constrained channel. On this basis, we model the loop as a two-stage cascade $U \to H \to Y$ given $S$, with cognitive capacity $C_{\text{cog}|S}$ and average total capacity $\bar{C}_{\text{tot}|S}$. Our main result is a capacity-coupled Alignment Performance Interval. It pairs a data size-independent Fano lower bound proved on a separable codebook mixture with a PAC-Bayes upper bound whose KL term is controlled by the same channel via $m \, \bar{C}_{\text{tot}|S}$. The PAC-Bayes bound becomes an upper bound on the same true risk when the canonical observable loss is used and the dataset is drawn from the same mixture. Under these matched conditions, both limits are governed by a single capacity. Consequences include that, with value complexity and capacity fixed, adding labels alone cannot cross the bound; attaining lower risk on more complex targets requires capacity that grows with $\log M$; and once useful signal saturates capacity, further optimization tends to fit channel regularities, consistent with reports of sycophancy and reward hacking. The analysis views alignment as interface engineering: measure and allocate limited capacity, manage task complexity, and decide where information is spent.