Preference Is Not Intervention: The Structure and Stability Boundaries of Reader-Specific Evidence Utility

As language models shift from single-shot answer generation toward multi-step reasoning that retrieves and consumes evidence mid-inference, evaluating the role of individual retrieved items becomes more important. Existing RAG evaluation typically targets final-answer quality, citation faithfulness, or answer-level attribution, but none of these directly targets the intervention-based, per-evidence-item utility view we study here. We introduce CUE-R, a lightweight intervention-based framework for measuring per-evidence-item operational utility in single-shot RAG using shallow observable retrieval-use traces. CUE-R perturbs individual evidence items via REMOVE, REPLACE, and DUPLICATE operators, then measures changes along three utility axes (correctness, proxy-based grounding faithfulness, and confidence error) plus a trace-divergence signal. We also outline an operational evidence-role taxonomy for interpreting intervention outcomes. Experiments on HotpotQA and 2WikiMultihopQA with Qwen-3 8B and GPT-5.2 reveal a consistent pattern: REMOVE and REPLACE substantially harm correctness and grounding while producing large trace shifts, whereas DUPLICATE is often answer-redundant yet not fully behaviorally neutral. A zero-retrieval control confirms that these effects arise from degradation of meaningful retrieval. A two-support ablation further shows that multi-hop evidence items can interact non-additively: removing both supports harms performance far more than either single removal. Our results suggest that answer-only evaluation misses important evidence effects and that intervention-based utility analysis is a practical complement for RAG evaluation.

In multi-hop RAG evaluation, a top-k answer score can hide two different failures: the retrieval window may drop part of the support chain, or it may contain support in a form the adapted reader does not use well. We call this reader-facing form of retrieved evidence an evidence interface. Using three support-annotated multi-hop QA benchmarks, we compare matched adapted readers trained with raw context, retrieval windows, and gold-support diagnostic renderings. These comparisons distinguish support-availability failures from remaining reader-interface effects. Top-k windows become interpretable only after checking whether the complete annotated support chain survives: when it does, short ranked windows can match or improve over raw context; when it does not, missing support explains much of the loss. Gold support-first improves matched readers; on 2Wiki and MuSiQue, a support-supervised ranker raises coverage and recovers raw-context quality at lower prompt cost, while retaining gold headroom. Support-removal checks further show that the gains rely on exposed evidence, not only answer priors. On support-annotated evaluations, top-k answer scores should therefore be reported together with complete-support coverage.

Retrieval evaluation for retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) is increasingly designed around whether retrieved passages contain evidence that can support generation, rather than topical relevance alone. We study whether this closer alignment with downstream evidence needs also makes retrieval evaluation more useful for the decisions built from it. Across five retrieval benchmarks and an end-to-end TREC RAG 2025 setting, we examine an answer-support signal in four roles: comparing retrievers, guiding retrieval training and system selection, predicting downstream answer quality, and filtering the evidence supplied to a generator. The signal changes retrieval rankings, but its downstream value is not uniform. It does not reliably improve retriever training; the benefit of using it for system selection depends on how the generator is instructed to use the retrieved evidence; and retrieval scores based on it do not robustly predict answer quality on unseen topics. In a direct evidence intervention, human annotators confirm that filtering preferentially preserves passages containing useful answer evidence, yet different answer evaluators reach different conclusions about whether the resulting answers improve. These results show that making retrieval evaluation more closely reflect the evidence needed for generation does not by itself make every downstream use of that evaluation more reliable. RAG evaluation methods should therefore be assessed with respect to the particular comparisons, decisions, and conclusions they are intended to support.