In contested domains, instruction-tuned language models must balance user-alignment pressures against faithfulness to the in-context evidence. To evaluate this tension, we introduce a controlled epistemic-conflict framework grounded in the U.S. National Climate Assessment. We conduct fine-grained ablations over evidence composition and uncertainty cues across 19 instruction-tuned models spanning 0.27B to 32B parameters. Across neutral prompts, richer evidence generally improves evidence-consistent accuracy and ordinal scoring performance. Under user pressure, however, evidence does not reliably prevent user-aligned reversals in this controlled fixed-evidence setting. We report three primary failure modes. First, we identify a negative partial-evidence interaction, where adding epistemic nuance, specifically research gaps, is associated with increased susceptibility to sycophancy in families like Llama-3 and Gemma-3. Second, robustness scales non-monotonically: within some families, certain low-to-mid scale models are especially sensitive to adversarial user pressure. Third, models differ in distributional concentration under conflict: some instruction-tuned models maintain sharply peaked ordinal distributions under pressure, while others are substantially more dispersed; in scale-matched Qwen comparisons, reasoning-distilled variants (DeepSeek-R1-Qwen) exhibit consistently higher dispersion than their instruction-tuned counterparts. These findings suggest that, in a controlled fixed-evidence setting, providing richer in-context evidence alone offers no guarantee against user pressure without explicit training for epistemic integrity.