遠くの文脈を取り出せても熟語の解釈が変わらない場合

Long-context evaluations often test whether a model can recover distant evidence, but recoverability does not guarantee behavioral influence. We test the prediction that a distant discourse anchor can remain explicitly recoverable yet fail to change the locally preferred reading of a familiar multiword expression; such failures should concentrate when the model's no-anchor default conflicts with the anchor, while prior-correct decisions remain largely preserved. We introduce Multiword Expression Effective Context Length (MWE-ECL), a bilingual diagnostic whose matched anchor-retrieval, no-anchor prior, and interpretation prompts measure explicit recoverability, model-observed defaults, and anchor-conditioned decisions, respectively. Across eight English deployment panels on a shared 0-128K grid, retrieval-control accuracy on prior-conflict items is 0.989-1.000, prior-conflict override spans 0.806-1.000 (0.809-1.000 after conditioning on correct retrieval), and preservation of prior-correct decisions remains 0.977-1.000. A same-call control querying retrieval and interpretation in one prompt reproduces the gap for DeepSeek V4 Pro (1.000 retrieval versus 0.900-0.920 interpretation), showing that separate invocations are not its sole explanation; smaller or absent gaps in the other two models bound its generality. For DeepSeek V4 Flash, separate prompt-fit tests retain perfect retrieval with lower interpretation at 512K and 1M, while foil-consistent cues shift the no-anchor prior far more than retrieval; cross-model cue effects are heterogeneous. A separately reported 10-family Chinese subset shows similar descriptive gaps, but imperfect retrieval for some models prevents an integration-only attribution. MWE-ECL therefore evaluates whether explicitly recoverable distant context changes a competing local semantic decision.