Evidence construction--the stage that determines which passages reach the language model before generation begins--is evaluated paradigm by paradigm, leaving practitioners with no principled way to diagnose which organization strategy fails, where, or why. We introduce AuthTrace, a diagnostic benchmark built on thematically dense single-author corpora where near-miss distractors share style, topic, and vocabulary with the required evidence. AuthTrace provides explicit quoted evidence, exact fan-in annotation, and a unified pack-level protocol measuring evidence recall, evidence precision, and answer correctness. A fan-in gradient--the number of source documents required to support the answer--serves as the primary diagnostic axis, enabling controlled comparison across retrieval, memory, graph, and structured-evidence paradigms. Evaluating eight systems across two QA models, we find that evidence recall is the strongest observed predictor of answer correctness under the primary reader-judge pair (r = 0.96); most failures stem from missing evidence rather than answer synthesis. Fan-in further exposes paradigm-specific collapse patterns: flat retrieval degrades 2-3x faster than thematically organized evidence construction. These results show fan-in decomposition to be a reusable diagnostic lens for identifying where evidence-construction systems fail and which paradigm best serves a given workload.