The RemOve-And-Retrain (ROAR) benchmark is widely used to evaluate feature attribution methods, yet its validity remains underexplored from an information-theoretic perspective. We show that model- and data-agnostic post-processing of attribution maps (transformations that, by the data processing inequality, \emph{cannot} add information about the decision function) can often improve ROAR scores. This means that an improved ROAR ranking is not, by itself, evidence that an attribution map carries more information about the model. We trace this failure mode to a bias toward spatially blurry masks. Experiments on CIFAR-10, SVHN, and CUB-200 show a consistent association between blurriness and ROAR performance, a pattern that also appears in the ROAD variant. We provide guidelines for more cautious removal-based benchmarking, with implications for validating mechanistic understanding of neural network internals.