Asked whether to walk or drive to a car wash 50 m away, most language models say walk, forgetting that the car has to be there. Such failures are usually measured by accuracy on questions where the hidden constraint applies. We show that this is misleading: a model can answer these questions correctly without reasoning about the constraint at all, simply by favoring the cautious option. We instead ask whether a model's decision changes when the constraint is removed. We test this at three levels of control: log-probability sweeps on open-weight models, a 500-prompt stress test, and CORE, a new human-validated benchmark of minimal constraint-present/constraint-absent pairs. The picture is consistent. The constraint nudges decisions rather than governing them. Models still miss presence constraints like the car wash, yet elsewhere they apply constraints that are not there. As a result, standard accuracy flatters all ten models we evaluate and reorders their ranking, and prompting fixes that look effective largely vanish under paired scoring. Claims about hidden-constraint reasoning need paired evidence.