Several recent pipelines build RLVR training data by masking a span of real corpus text and asking a language model to invent plausible wrong answers around it. The correct option is therefore genuine human prose; every distractor is synthetic. Correctness and provenance become entangled, and a policy could in principle learn the second instead of the first.
We audit that possibility in GooseReason-0.7M. First we ask whether the asymmetry is visible at all: a classifier reading only five surface statistics (never the meaning) reaches AUROC 0.562 over 315,499 options, barely above chance.
The aggregate hides something, though. Code sits at 0.416, below chance, and manual inspection explains why: code distractors turn out to be single-operator mutations of the gold answer rather than freely written alternatives, so the two classes are nearly identical by construction.
Detecting a signal is not the same as showing a model uses it, so we then run an intervention. We build a paraphrase-matched control corpus, hold training-set size identical across arms, and train two policies under one fixed budget.
The exploitation gap does not favour the unmodified-data arm: 0.021 against 0.027 for the control. Under our budget, in other words, a detectable artifact went unexploited.
We think that dissociation, along with the domain-specific construction finding, is worth knowing for anyone curating corpora of this kind, and we release the audit as a mostly CPU-only protocol.