World models are increasingly judged by how well they rank plausible futures, yet plausibility alone is the wrong target. The same scene can evolve under many latent rules, and a future that is smooth and physically valid under one rule can be incoherent under the rule actually in force. We formalize the resulting failure, operator-blindness, and show that it is systematically hidden by standard evaluation: a scorer can attain near-perfect generic ranking while separating current-world from other-world futures no better than chance. We introduce Operator-Mismatch Contrastive (OMC) learning, whose semantic hard negatives are valid-but-wrong-operator trajectories, and a matching protocol that measures world-relative coherence directly. On a controlled synthetic benchmark with in- and out-of-distribution operator parameters, across two trajectory-scoring backbones, and on feature-level external validation with CoPhy ballsCF, OMC raises operator-sensitive scoring far above a chance baseline that nonetheless achieves 0.99 generic top-1. We prove that the wrong-operator negative is necessary both for the protocol to detect the failure and for the objective to fix it, and position OMC as an auxiliary coherence signal (a trajectory-coherence scorer, not a generative model, planner, or control agent) that can be attached to existing world-model representations.

翻译：暂无翻译