Pooling, substituting, or reusing evaluator-derived step rewards assumes that their direction survives a change of evaluation channel. The same frozen transition can violate that assumption. Process rewards vary agent states, while evaluator audits vary scoring configurations; neither first difference isolates their interaction. We define Agent Step Value (ASV) as a channel-indexed target-margin gain and identify the state-by-channel interaction on complete matched faces. Across frozen PubMed question-answering transitions, direct scoring yields a positive mean ASV, while the generated-view channel yields a negative mean. Two matched replay waves reproduce this reversal, and cross-channel sign disagreement exceeds same-channel retry disagreement by 48.0 percentage points. Matched retrieval faces localize the reversal to the generated-view coordinate and trace its direction across a readout-and-stack bridge. A source-only generation contract restores the positive mean direction on artifact-bearing retrievals and removes parser-detected substantive support claims from artifact-free before-state views. ASV turns channel sensitivity into an identified measurement problem that can be localized and tested by intervention before step rewards are reused.
Reinforcement learning with verifiable rewards (RLVR) is a standard recipe for training large language models on mathematical reasoning, where an answer verifier serves as a language-neutral reward function. We show that this assumption fails in multilingual settings: an exact-match verifier turns format and script variation into language-dependent false-negative reward noise. We introduce a reusable protocol for auditing multilingual RLVR rewards: a verifier-robustness suite, a rollout-diagnosis procedure, and language-conditioned reward-error metrics for Japanese, English, and Chinese answers. On MGSM rollouts with k=8, the exact-match proxy rejects trusted-correct answers at sharply different rates by language across Qwen3-4B, Qwen3-8B, and Llama-3.1-8B-Instruct; for Qwen3-8B, the false-negative rate reaches 0.642 on JP against 0.122 on EN and 0.073 on CN. A plain-numeric probe localizes the mechanism to the final-answer interface: an interface model drives reward-error VLB to zero while the residual accuracy gap is unchanged. We then expose a cross-lingual selection bottleneck: on MGSM250 rollouts, a target-local aggregation rule using no trusted labels closes 55-78% of the average selection gap, and over 95% of repairs require genuine cross-lingual support. The bottleneck replicates on a 483-problem MATH-500 set. A controlled training audit shows that rule-GRPO raises trusted accuracy while the reward-error VLB stays high. The unifying message is operational: multilingual RLVR rewards should be audited by language and by answer interface before they are optimized.