$\DeclareMathOperator\Cov{Cov}$Backround of my Question
Let $Y$ be the response variable, $\mathbb{X}$ be the explanatory variables. The ultimate goal of prediction is finding a function $f^{*}$ that minimize $\mathbb{E}[(Y - f^{*}(\mathbb{X})^2)]$, we know that the solution is $f^{*}(\mathbb{X}) = \mathbb{E}[Y | \mathbb{X}]$. Let $\epsilon = Y - \mathbb{E}[Y | \mathbb{X}]$, then we have $$ Y = f^{*}(\mathbb{X}) + \epsilon $$ where $\mathbb{E}[\mathbb{\epsilon}] = 0$, and $\Cov[\mathbb{X}, \epsilon] = 0$.
So, I think the goal of regression somehow become finding a function $g \approx f^*$ from some hypothesis space (e.g. $g(\mathbb{X}) = \mathbb{X}\beta$ for linear regression).
One way of defining $g \approx f^*$ (which can persuade myself that it is a good approximation) is $$ \mathbb{P}[|f^{*}(\mathbb{X}) - g(\mathbb{X})| > \eta] < \delta $$ for small $\eta$ and $\delta$.
Question
Given that $g \approx f^{*}$ (in the sense defined above), if I can show that $\Cov[\widehat{Y}, \widehat{\epsilon}] \approx 0$ ($\widehat{Y} = g(\mathbb{X})$, and $\widehat{\epsilon} = Y - g(\mathbb{X})$), then when I see a residual plot like this Residual Plot
I can persuade myself this might be a signal suggesting that $g(\mathbb{X})$ probably a good approximation.
So, my question is how to show that $g \approx f^* \Longrightarrow \Cov[\widehat{Y}, \widehat{\epsilon}] \approx 0$?
My Attemp
If further assume that $\mathbb{X}$ and $\epsilon$ are independent (is $\Cov[\mathbb{X}, \epsilon] = 0$ sufficient?), then $\Cov[f^{*}\mathbb(X), \epsilon] = 0$, hence
\begin{equation} \begin{aligned} |\Cov[\widehat{Y}, \widehat{\epsilon}]| &= |\Cov[f^*(\mathbb{X}) + (g(\mathbb{X}) - f^*\mathbb(X)), (f^*(\mathbb{X}) - g(\mathbb{X})) + \epsilon]| \\ &\leq |\Cov[f^{*}(\mathbb{X}), f^{*}(\mathbb{X}) - g(\mathbb{X})]| + |\Cov[g(\mathbb{X}) - f^{*}(\mathbb{X}), f^{*}(\mathbb{X}) - g(\mathbb{X})]| + |\Cov[g(\mathbb{X}) - f^{*}(\mathbb{X}), \epsilon]| \\ & \leq |\Cov[f^{*}(\mathbb{X}), f^{*}(\mathbb{X}) - g(\mathbb{X})]| + |\Cov[g(\mathbb{X}) - f^{*}(\mathbb{X}), \epsilon]| + |Var[f^*(\mathbb{X}) - g(\mathbb{X})]| \end{aligned} \end{equation} Intuitively, since $f^{*}(\mathbb{X}) - g(\mathbb{X}) \approx 0$ with high probability, the last three terms may be small (depend on $\epsilon$ and $\delta$). But I don't know how to do it formally.
Edit
By @losifpinelis 's construction, $\exists (Y, \mathbb{X})$, for any given $\eta, \delta, M > 0$, there exists a function $g_N$ such that $$ \mathbb{P}[|f^{*}(\mathbb{X}) - g_N(\mathbb{X})| > \eta] < \delta $$ but $|\Cov[g_N(\mathbb{X}), \epsilon_N]| > M$. Therefore, this is not a proper definition for this problem.
My next Question is "Is $\mathbb{E}[(f^{*}(\mathbb{X}) - g(\mathbb{X}))^2] < \eta$ a proper definition of goodness of approximation?". That is, does $$ \mathbb{E}[(f^{*}(\mathbb{X}) - g(\mathbb{X}))^2] < \eta \Longrightarrow \Cov[\widehat{Y}, \widehat{\epsilon}] < SomeFunction(\eta) $$ hold?