One approach to accelerating progress on AI alignment is to automate parts of alignment research itself. Doing so requires systems that can perform reliably on hard-to-supervise research tasks, including identifying flaws in research proposals and evaluating whether a proposed experiment supports its intended claim. To evaluate this capability, we introduce **Tampered ML**, a benchmark of 1,858 item-pairs, each consisting of an experiment proposal reconstructed from a published machine learning paper and a minimally edited counterfactual that introduces a targeted methodological flaw. Models must identify the more methodologically sound proposal in both presentation orders. A human validation study on a stratified sample estimates that 80-90% of items are valid. Frontier models perform above chance but remain far from reliable (with Opus 5 achieving 77.9% accuracy). They are highly sensitive to the order of presentation and favor flawed designs that appear more specific, transparent, or conventional.