Evaluation scores are often validated by their agreement with inexpensive proxy labels.
When the score and the proxy are computed from the same text span, however, that agreement can arise from surface evidence the two share rather than from the semantic construct the proxy is meant to represent.
We make the distinction explicit by declaring the score, its span, the proxy and the target construct as a validation contract, then re-evaluating that proxy rule strictly outside the scored span.
In a controlled HotpotQA correctness experiment varying only the shared text boundary
the score agrees with its proxy far better than with correctness at a 50-character prefix: the gap is +0.184, collapsing to at most +0.045 from 120 characters onward.
At that short prefix the score still predicts whether the answer string appears later (AUC 0.634) while an equivalence test places its agreement with correctness at chance, so the reported proxy agreement does not establish that the score ranks correctness.
On OR-Bench
suppressing each model's recurring opening templates removes most of the score's association with the refusal proxy, while matched-volume deletion removes almost none and construct agreement stays at chance.
Only three of eleven external contracts support the off-span control, and none of the routing studies we sampled released the generations it needs.
We therefore ask that a proxy-based validation claim declare the span each label is read from, report the construct agreement beside the proxy agreement, and release the generations that let the proxy be re-read off the scored span.