Applying computational methods to law at scale requires separating genuine legal reasoning from surface similarity. We study this through a concrete task: detecting *implicit* citations of the French Civil Code, where a court applies a statutory rule without naming it (a *post-hoc* question about the reasoning a court actually used). We release a benchmark of 1,015 passage–article pairs annotated by three legal experts. Our central finding is that their disagreement is itself informative: the third of cases the experts dispute are where models fail. Our best ensemble reaches an F1 score of 0.70 overall. Yet, two-thirds of its false positives fall on those disputed cases, a concentration that holds across all ten models we evaluate. Expert disagreement thus signals uncertainty in the task and in its gold label, which aggregate metrics hide. This should not block useful tools, however: reframed as top-k ranking with multi-model consensus, the same signals reach 76% precision for the top-200 candidates of the benchmark without supervision.