Evaluation scores used around LLM systems -- including reward models, rerankers, and LLM judges -- can track surface form instead of the quality they claim to measure. When presented with a terse correct solution and a commented buggy solution for the same MBPP problem, a public preference reward model selects the correct one no better than a coin flip (0.507). Subtracting the predictable surface component from such scores is increasingly common, but removal alone does not yield a more valid measurement: the removed component may carry construct-relevant signal, and residualization cannot tell which is which. Under designed interventions -- unit-test labels with comment-only edits -- residualization attenuates the reward model's format effects by about 0.12 on both correct and buggy code, while the correct-versus-buggy margins move by less than 0.01. In observational NLI and QA settings, we freeze a held-out replication before scoring and re-evaluate it using labels from disjoint annotators; this supports only a narrower conclusion: better agreement with the construct labels on a pre-declared slice where a surface-only predictor errs, not a repaired score. Full-population agreement falls in every observational setting with a reported positive slice gain, and within-question ranking falls in every such QA setting. When construct and surface features are entangled, residualization can decorrelate a score while degrading construct alignment, and, in a controlled model, configurations just as damaging to construct alignment pass every pre-adjustment check, so no committed gate is a guarantee. We assemble these distinctions into a reporting protocol whose outcomes, refusal included, state what an adjusted score may be claimed to show: an audit-time diagnostic reported beside the construct-alignment cost it incurs, never a replacement for the raw score.

翻译：暂无翻译