让下一篇重要论文，不再错过。

原文摘要

LLM judges often check, against an amendment record, whether the documents an answer cites are still in force. Such records are rarely complete. From a table of replacements, our test generates matched answers citing a replaced document, its successor, the replaced document before its replacement, and an older document that a newer one updated without replacing; it removes links from the record and scores each finding by its stated reason. On 48 replacements from the IETF RFC index, judges given a correct record caught nearly every replaced citation, as a lookup would. On the 24 faults whose link we removed, every judge caught more from the texts alone than with the record: Gemini 3.1 Pro 23/24 against 1/24, GPT-5.5 23/24 against 9/24, Claude Opus 4.5 17/24 against 9/24 and Gemma 4 26B 13/24 against 0/24. The drop recurred on a second draw of removed links. Most misses carried no finding; in an exploratory run with a conflict code, only Gemini used it often. Rewording the gap as "no replacement recorded" did not help; presenting the record as an unverified note, or warning that it was incomplete, restored most lost catches for Gemini, GPT-5.5 and Claude (significant after correction for the first two) but at most 5 of 13 for Gemma; where catches returned, so did false alarms on updates. With both texts, judges mostly told replacements from updates; every update flagged had a near-identical title. A descriptive case study on Indian rooftop-solar rules is appended; we release the harness.