Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used as automatic judges to evaluate system outputs in tasks such as reasoning, question answering, and creative writing. A faithful judge should base its verdicts solely on content quality, remain invariant to irrelevant context, and transparently reflect the factors driving its decisions. We test this ideal via controlled cue perturbations-synthetic metadata labels injected into evaluation prompts-for six judge models: GPT-4o, Gemini-2.0-Flash, Gemma-3-27B, Qwen3-235B, Claude-3-Haiku, and Llama3-70B. Experiments span two complementary datasets with distinct evaluation regimes: ELI5 (factual QA) and LitBench (open-ended creative writing). We study six cue families: source, temporal, age, gender, ethnicity, and educational status. Beyond measuring verdict shift rates (VSR), we introduce cue acknowledgment rate (CAR) to quantify whether judges explicitly reference the injected cues in their natural-language rationales. Across cues with strong behavioral effects-e.g., provenance hierarchies (Expert > Human > LLM > Unknown), recency preferences (New > Old), and educational-status favoritism-CAR is typically at or near zero, indicating that shortcut reliance is largely unreported even when it drives decisions. Crucially, CAR is also dataset-dependent: explicit cue recognition is more likely to surface in the factual ELI5 setting for some models and cues, but often collapses in the open-ended LitBench regime, where large verdict shifts can persist despite zero acknowledgment. The combination of substantial verdict sensitivity and limited cue acknowledgment reveals an explanation gap in LLM-as-judge pipelines, raising concerns about reliability of model-based evaluation in both research and deployment.