An argument can be surprising coming from a particular speaker without being a bad argument. Do AI evaluators keep these judgments apart? Two preregistered descriptive studies and a later Jev supplement collected 2,976 usable evaluations of six fixed texts about US AI policy, Germany's debt brake and Swiss nuclear energy.

Each text was presented under several source attributions. The key comparison asks whether the gap between two sources changes when the argument changes.

On Sol, for example, a national-security argument received mean ratings of 0.359 under CODEPINK and 0.639 under College Republicans; a civil-rights argument received 0.742 and 0.721. A constant preference for one source cannot explain that pattern.

Related interactions appeared across topics and recent model configurations, including those with reasoning enabled, while several comparisons yielded small effects. The later European Jev supplement yielded five interactions below the adopted absolute reference of 0.05; its distinct rubric and interrupted collection limit comparison with the chat systems.

Some written evaluations explicitly invoked a mismatch between a source and its attributed position. Taken together, the numerical and verbal evidence supports source-position coherence as a plausible explanation, alongside competing accounts involving credibility, authenticity and interpretation of the task.

The paper develops this inference through controlled comparisons, reports conditional post hoc p-values in an appendix, and documents the human decisions and delegated checks behind an AI-conducted study.