Grounded language-model systems are often evaluated by final answer accuracy, yet a correct answer can be unsupported, drawn from the wrong source, or produced when evidence is insufficient or contradictory. We introduce EviScope, a paired counterfactual benchmark that holds the question fixed while adding, removing, distracting, or contradicting its evidence.

EviScope-v1.1 contains 40 four-condition quartets with repaired counterfactual claims and span-level support labels for automatic evaluation. Across 960 gold-blind generations from Qwen2.5-7B, Llama 3.1 8B, and Gemini 3.5 Flash, paired metrics expose model-dependent grounding behavior that answer accuracy hides.

On two local open models, an explicit evidence-action gate underperforms vanilla RAG on QCS: 0.15 vs. 0.50 for Qwen and 0.10 vs.

0.375 for Llama. Gemini reaches 0.944 joint success under both prompts, yet still answers 5% of conflict cases after contradiction insertion.

EviScope therefore distinguishes unsupported answering, conflict blindness, and wrong non-answer actions rather than scoring answers alone.