Evidence First, Arithmetic Second: A System Report and Failure Analysis for DocSem

We describe our system for DocSem, the document-grounded quantitative reasoning shared task at DocInsights 2026, and analyze why it succeeded on labeled data and failed on the test set. The pipeline pairs hybrid block retrieval with Program-of-Thoughts (PoT) generation executed in a sandboxed interpreter, self-consistency sampling, and entity enrichment from chunk-level knowledge graphs. On our held-out split, application architecture moved the metrics far more than model scale did: PoT added 0.282 joint accuracy to a compact 7B model but at most 0.005 to a 72B model, and a 27B model with the full harness matched the 72B (0.884 vs.\ 0.873) at roughly 2.7$\times$ fewer parameters and a quarter of the CO$_2$. We read this through a distinction between world knowledge, which scales steeply with parameters, and language knowledge, which scales gently, and show that structured-output training makes a compact model harness-ready rather than merely small. On the raster, watermarked test PDFs the same system collapsed to 13.58% joint (rank 149 of 163); a controlled re-rendering of the validation set reproduces the OCR half of the collapse while bounding what the simulation misses. Auditing the physical nature of evaluation inputs precedes architecture, and the leaderboard's bimodality is consistent with reading quality, not reasoning, having separated the field.

Language-model benchmarks collapse two distinct measurement questions into a single accuracy score: whether a response reached an evaluable state, and whether its answer was judged correct. We introduce a two-layer evaluation framework that separates scorer-independent execution evidence, including termination, answer exposure, parseability, and completion length, from scorer-dependent correctness. Across 2,550 outputs from five fixed Qwen and DeepSeek configurations on MATH and ARC-Challenge, matched 2,048-token limits produce sharply different execution mixtures: 49 of 450 Qwen MATH outputs terminate without a final answer, compared with 5 of 300 DeepSeek MATH outputs and none of the 750 ARC outputs. Among the same 300 DeepSeek MATH question-model pairs, no missing-final length termination is observed at 8,192 tokens. A coverage-audited targeted verification study further shows that candidate-selection and aggregation policies can substantially alter comparative accuracy estimates. These results demonstrate that accuracy conflates execution case mix with verification policy. Evaluations of test-time methods should therefore report pre-intervention execution states, verification coverage, and scorer provenance alongside accuracy.

Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) have significantly advanced document understanding, yet current Doc-VQA evaluations score only the final answer and leave the supporting evidence unchecked. This answer-only approach masks a critical failure mode: a model can land on the correct answer while grounding it in the wrong passage---a critical risk in high-stakes domains like law, finance, and medicine, where every conclusion must be traceable to a specific source region. To address this, we introduce CiteVQA, a benchmark that requires models to return element-level bounding-box citations alongside each answer, evaluating both jointly. CiteVQA comprises 1,897 questions across 711 PDFs spanning seven domains and two languages, averaging 40.6 pages per document. To ensure fidelity and scalability, the ground-truth citations are generated by an automated pipeline---which identifies crucial evidence via masking ablation and enforces multi-stage quality control. At the core of our evaluation is Strict Attributed Accuracy (SAA), which credits a prediction only when the answer and the cited region are both correct. Auditing 20 MLLMs reveals a pervasive Attribution Hallucination: models frequently produce the right answer while citing the wrong region. The strongest system (Gemini-3.1-Pro-Preview) achieves an SAA of only 76.0, and the strongest open-source MLLM reaches just 22.5. Ultimately, towards trustworthy document intelligence, CiteVQA exposes a reliability gap that answer-only evaluations overlook, providing the instrumentation needed to close it. Our repository is available at https://github.com/opendatalab/CiteVQA.