Evidence-sufficiency benchmarks ask whether a model can tell a complete passage set from one whose reasoning chain is broken. When broken sets are made by editing text, near-perfect sufficiency scores--and even positive crossed-control scores--need not demonstrate multi-hop reasoning. We present ChainCheck, an evaluation-validity audit that pairs validator-certified counterfactual cells with artifact-only baselines. In an exploratory crossed control on 2,214 HotpotQA pairs, a language-model scorer that never reads the chain reaches a nominal AUC of 0.997, and a one-string match reaches the maximum of the crossed chain-sensitivity statistic CS4 (0.500), while the 11 evaluated systems score from 0.308 to 0.484; the two statistics are different metrics. We therefore read positive CS4 as operational bridge-consistency sensitivity, not as semantic multi-hop reasoning. Every system is also sensitive to one extra edit, and the edits are detectable according to model-based naturalness ratings. On an independent HotpotQA set of 2,276 pairs, patterns pre-specified on MuSiQue and 2WikiMultiHopQA did not replicate: 5 of 6 trained readouts were edit-dominated, and the reference judge's selectivity interval [-0.007, +0.042] includes zero. Judge scores also depended on batch layout. The MuSiQue and 2Wiki records are public; the HotpotQA records and the fine-tuned checkpoints are not, so external reproduction is partial.

翻译：暂无翻译