修复解码漏洞可同时提升安全与可用性，但关键步骤仍存在权衡。

Safety classifiers ("guards") are the dominant black-box defense for vision-language models, yet a guard judges an input's surface form, not its meaning: a harmful request re-encoded as set theory, formal logic, a classical language, code, or text rendered inside an image slips past a guard that would block it in plain language - the decode gap. The standard fix is a preprocessor that recovers image content and decodes the encoding before the guard. We build one and evaluate it against an ensemble of eleven published encoding attacks, counting a behavior as broken if any attack succeeds. That metric separates two mechanisms such defenses conflate. Restoring a view the guard never had improves it on both axes at once: it blocks far more attacks, and, measured on a category-balanced benign set, it blocks fewer benign requests, because restating a request normalizes the borderline phrasing a classifier over-flags. It still does not make the system safer: against an attacker free to choose among eleven encodings, closing one channel relocates the success rather than removing it, and no ensemble contrast survives multiple-comparison correction. What does lower ensemble attack success is re-screening the recovered pre-decode surface, and that step is where the entire benign cost falls. The safety-utility trade-off is therefore not a property of recovery; it is localized to one step. Across the full guard x target x condition factorial, no configuration reaches an ensemble attack-success rate at or below 40% while holding benign over-refusal under 70%. The per-attack averages usually reported understate the attacker roughly fourfold, which is why this frontier is easy to miss. Composing across defense families is the one lever that moved the safety axis, beating every configuration we measured, and still landing far outside any deployable refusal budget.