Missing and misleading evidence are not the same problem in retrieval-augmented generation (RAG), but prompt-based abstention treats them alike. Small frozen models abstain when context is absent, not when it is misleading. We introduce GRAB-RAG (Graded Abstention Benchmark for Retrieval-Augmented Generation), a paired benchmark that tests the same questions across four context conditions (supportive, degraded, missing, and misleading) in Natural Questions and HotpotQA. In the misleading condition, we edit a gold passage to support a wrong answer and place it among other retrieved passages. We test five abstention policies on three small frozen models (3.8B–8B) across two English QA benchmarks. Models abstain reliably when evidence is missing, but under explicit abstention prompting still answer 41.6% of misleading questions, with 63% of those answers echoing the planted wrong entity. Chain-of-thought provides little additional benefit. A generator-side conflict check cuts the rate to 13.3% but discards many correct answers, while a natural language inference (NLI) verifier recovers that coverage but fails when parametric memory and the misleading passage agree on the same wrong answer. Prompt-based abstention asks whether context is sufficient, not whether it is correct. The two-pass checks are diagnostic baselines, not deployable mitigations.