Do expert personas improve language model performance? The Wharton Generative AI Lab reports that they do not, broadcasting to millions via social media the recommendation that practitioners abandon a technique recommended by Anthropic, Google, and OpenAI. We demonstrate that this null finding was structurally predictable. Five core mechanisms precluded detection before data collection began: baseline contamination elevating the starting point to near-ceiling, system prompt hierarchy subordinating experimental manipulation, impossible expert specifications collapsing to generic competence, format constraints suppressing reasoning processes, and provider exclusion limiting generalizability. Controlled trials correcting these limitations reveal what the original design obscured. To test this, we selected the GPQA Diamond hardest questions to prevent baseline pattern matching, forcing reliance on genuine expert reasoning. On items with valid key answers, expert personas achieve ceiling accuracy. They eliminated all baseline errors through confidence amplification. Furthermore, forensic examination of model divergence identified that half of the hardest GPQA items contain chemically or logically indefensible answers. The model's CoT revealed reasoning away from impossible answers, yielding penalization for accurate chemistry. These findings recontextualize the original null results. Methodologically sound persona research faces measurement constraints imposed by benchmark validity limitations. Answering the persona question requires evaluation infrastructure the field does not yet possess.