Fact verification systems rank web evidence by relevance, yet relevant passages may lack verdict-critical facts. We define decision-grade evidence as credible, temporally valid, and claim-matched information independently sufficient to support or refute a claim. Using 750 expert-audited claim–passage pairs for 150 financial claims, we compare relevance and decision-grade supervision within two rerankers while holding candidate evidence pools and verifiers fixed. Within these pools, 66.5% of relevant pairs are insufficient, and claim-level decision-grade coverage trails relevance coverage by 40.0 percentage points. Compared with relevance supervision, decision-grade supervision improves the ranking of sufficient evidence in one reranker but shows no clear advantage in the other. Frozen (untuned) rerankers remain competitive, and downstream verification gains are modest and input-dependent. Thus, relevance is an unreliable proxy for verdict sufficiency; evidence availability, ordering, and verifier use require separate evaluation.