Final-answer accuracy, retrieval recall, and citation overlap do not reveal how much answer advantage a long-context or retrieval-augmented language model actually recovers from supplied evidence. A model may answer from parametric priors, fail to use evidence that is present, or cite relevant text without converting it into the final answer. This paper introduces a four-condition diagnostic protocol for evidence-utilization evaluation under matched examples, models, prompts, and scoring rules. The protocol compares no-evidence, full-context, retrieved-evidence, and oracle-evidence reference conditions, and uses Oracle-Reference Normalized Context Utilization (ONCU) as a denominator-valid estimate of recovered oracle-reference evidence advantage. The empirical study evaluates five local open-weight models from the Qwen, Gemma, Llama, and Mistral families over Controlled-ONCU-safe16K, HotpotQA-ONCU, and 2WikiMultiHopQA-ONCU, comprising 18,000 ONCU-compatible predictions. Results show a task-dependent diagnostic pattern: controlled synthetic settings expose reduced recovery when the same evidence is embedded in long input rather than supplied compactly, while realistic multi-hop reconstructions show that full-context inputs outperform the tested retrieved inputs in denominator-free answer and evidence metrics, with ONCU supporting the same direction on oracle-improving groups. Sensitivity audits with stronger retrieval settings narrow some gaps but do not overturn the scoped interpretation. The main contribution is therefore not a single utilization ratio, but a matched diagnostic protocol that separates no-evidence answerability, oracle-evidence recoverability, full-context recovery, retrieval-conditioned recovery, denominator validity, and companion answer/evidence diagnostics.