Failure-attribution benchmarks ask an LLM judge which step or agent caused a failure. A high score should mean the judge checked the faulty step against the run (a cross-step check). However, spurious signals (surface cues) that predict the annotation can produce a high score. In this paper, we propose four tests to separate checking from cue use. Input restriction asks whether partial input predicts the annotation. Cue following checks whether moved cues change answers. Residual accuracy scores judges where cue-only predictors fail. Aggregation asks whether the failure mix or metric changes rankings. Real observations motivate these tests: on three benchmarks, simple predictors match or beat GPT-4.1. In two Who&When Pro systems, a classifier reading one step's reasoning finds 95-100% of faulty steps, motivating input restriction. In one of them, error injection leaves no reasoning after the faulty step; judges fine-tuned on its labels beat GPT-4.1 by 41 points. Adding task-related reasoning after that step moves this cue: fine-tuned judges lose 31-99 points, but zero-shot judges lose at most 9, motivating cue following. On Aegis, blaming every agent matches GPT-4.1 on micro-F1 but trails by 19 points in exact-set accuracy, motivating aggregation. We recommend reporting these tests when developing failure-attribution benchmarks.

翻译：暂无翻译