Lower error from a text-conditioned neural surrogate does not, by itself, show that the model uses the meaning of the text.
We examine this attribution problem with OperatorCLIP, comparing an unconditioned FNO, a constant-sentence FiLM control, and a fixed task description trained with contrastive alignment.
Three-seed experiments cover Darcy2D, ShallowWater2D, and three-dimensional compressible Navier-Stokes (CNS3D).
Constant conditioning has lower mean test error on both 2D tasks.
Relative to this control, task text plus alignment has a similar mean on ShallowWater2D and CNS3D and a higher mean on Darcy2D; these descriptive comparisons have substantial seed uncertainty.
The latter comparison changes both prompt content and loss, so it isolates neither effect.
The text encoder is trained from scratch, and each conditioned model sees only one description during training.
In this regime, pairwise InfoNCE cannot identify matched pairs and has minimum $\log B$.
Prompt interventions show no reliable semantic ordering.
This methodological caution demonstrates why pathway controls are needed; it neither establishes semantic competence of the encoder nor tests the effectiveness of text under varying physical context.