A growing line of work tests whether large language model (LLM) explanations are faithful by intervening on the explanation (removing, perturbing, or swapping it) and checking whether the model’s final answer changes – an Answer Change Rate (ACR), read as causal evidence. We argue this inference requires a control existing work has not consistently reported: whether the answer changes comparably under an unrelated disturbance. We run the causal intervention paradigm on 12 models (6 matched base/instruction-tuned pairs, 8B–70B parameters) on GSM8K and MMLU-STEM, adding a content-free filler control matched for length, a re-injection baseline measuring re-prompting and decoding instability, and paired significance testing across conditions. McNemar’s test does not detect a significantly larger answer-change rate for removal than for the control in 14 of 24 model–task cells (58%) – an absence of detected difference, not equivalence – the re-prompting/decoding floor alone exceeds 80% answer-change in one model, and a commonly assumed instruction-tuning effect does not replicate across families. We do not conclude that LLM explanations are faithful or unfaithful; we conclude that ACR frequently fails a basic specificity check and cannot alone support causal-faithfulness claims. We release the full pipeline and propose a minimal reporting standard for future studies.