Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) is usually evaluated by whether the final answer is correct. Under knowledge conflict, this hides a key question: did the model follow retrieved evidence, rely on its parametric prior, or produce a post-hoc rationale? We study this as context compliance, the regime in which retrieved context controls the answer even when it conflicts with the model’s prior knowledge. We introduce Context-Driven Decomposition (CDD), an inference-time diagnostic intervention that elicits contextual and prior answers, isolates the conflicting premise, and records a resolution trace that can be perturbed. Across Epi-Scale stress tests, TruthfulQA misconception injection, and cross-model reruns, CDD makes three behaviors visible. First, misleading retrieval can severely degrade accuracy: under worst-case injected context (a TruthfulQA misconception-injection probe), Standard RAG reaches only 15.0%. Second, better answers need not share the same mechanism: CDD improves adversarial accuracy on Gemini-2.5-Flash and shows directional gains across Claude variants, yet trace-perturbation sensitivity is high only on Gemini. Third, explicit decomposition improves controlled-conflict robustness over a conflict-aware instruction baseline on localized factual conflicts, with the clearest margins on Entity Swap (88.0% vs 79.3%) and Logical Contradiction (83.2% vs 75.4%). We frame RAG conflict handling as an observability problem.

Cited RAG evaluation often treats visible sources as a grounding signal, but a real, topically relevant citation can still under-warrant the attached wording. We study this diagnostic failure as citation laundering: a related source is presented as warrant for an over-strong claim. We introduce ForceBench, a contrastive stress test for evidence-force calibration. Each item holds a cited passage fixed and pairs an evidence-calibrated claim with a localized force-raised variant across five operational axes: relation, modality, scope, temporal validity, and numeric specificity. A calibrated evaluator should score the evidence-calibrated claim higher. Headline experiments use a fixed, locality-filtered 198-pair evaluation set. A citation-presence sanity check is uninformative by design; token and entity overlap still violate monotonicity on 32.8–36.4% of pairs. Across four reported model judges, standard generic support prompting is insufficient for this force-calibration stress test (aggregate MVR 47.2%), while explicit warrant-strength prompting lowers MVR to 24.5% but remains imperfect. We release the benchmark, prompts, outputs, and plug-in pipeline so citation evaluators can report monotonicity violation rate and force sensitivity alongside conventional support metrics.