Perturbation experiments are central to understanding cellular mechanisms, but remain costly and sparse, motivating prediction of gene expression responses for unobserved conditions. A promising recent direction leverages large language models (LLMs) as "virtual cell" simulators-using stepwise, knowledge-grounded mechanistic reasoning to infer differential expression-pointing toward an interpretable, knowledge-driven paradigm that transcends purely data-driven approaches. However, we find that plausibility is not prediction: despite producing biologically plausible explanations, these methods fail to capture perturbation-specific effects: systematically overestimating differential expression, often underperforming a simple gene-frequency baseline in aggregate evaluations, and collapsing to chance-level performance at the per-gene level. This reveals a reliance on intrinsic gene response tendencies rather than true perturbation reasoning. We trace this failure to how evidence is presented: existing methods evaluate perturbation-gene pairs in isolation, without exposing how related perturbations differ in their effects on the same gene. To address this limitation, we introduce CORE (Contrastive Organization of Relational Evidence), which reframes prediction as a comparison task by organizing evidence into positive and negative outcomes from related perturbations. Using a biomedical knowledge graph for evidence retrieval, CORE improves calibration and substantially boosts perturbation-specific prediction in both LLM-based and non-LLM settings: for example, on drug-perturbation data, CORE-Reasoning improves Qwen3.5-9B aggregate metrics by up to 28.6%, while on generic perturbation data, CORE-Voting raises macro-per-gene AUROC from chance to 0.703 in average across four cell lines. This highlights contrastive evidence organization as essential to reliable LLM-based perturbation reasoning