Probabilistic forecasters are increasingly learned, yet the baselines they are compared against are often weak or omitted. We show that the simplest possible conformal interval - a last-value point forecast wrapped in a finite-sample split-conformal residual quantile, with no parameters and no training - is a far stronger baseline than its near-total absence from recent learned-forecasting and conformal-time-series comparisons would suggest. In one-step-ahead online forecasting across 2,217 real series from nine public sources (Monash, LOTSA, the LTSF traffic/electricity/weather suites, METR-LA, BOOM, nips/probts), this ConformalNaive interval decisively beats the naive value-quantile baselines, the entire NPTS family (NPTS 73%, SeasonalNPTS 64% of series), and the published Conformal Seasonal Pools (CSP) method (71% of series, bootstrap 95% CI [69,73], paired Wilcoxon p approx 7.6e-135); it is on par with the simpler learned conformal predictors (RCI, quantile regression; median relative Winkler within 2%) and is beaten only by the adaptive-online and ensemble methods (SPCI, ACI, AgACI), which track distribution shift and lead by 9-33% relative Winkler. It is also better calibrated than a trained neural forecaster: on the six datasets that introduced DeepNPTS, the trivial floors cover the truth 84-85% of the time at a nominal 95%, versus DeepNPTS's 66%. At multi-step seasonal horizons the picture inverts: the random-walk floor is the weakest method and the seasonal pool (CSP) wins - a boundary we map. Finally we give ConformalNaive+, a one-line, training-free, horizon-adaptive selector that attains the better of two complementary floors at every horizon with restored coverage. We argue the matching conformal naive floor must be a mandatory baseline whenever a learned probabilistic forecaster claims gains.