SWE-Bench-Verified, a dataset comprising 500 issues, serves as a de facto benchmark for evaluating various large language models (LLMs) on their ability to resolve GitHub issues. But this benchmark may overlap with model training data. If that is true, scores may reflect training recall, not issue-solving skill. To study this, we test two Claude models that frequently appear in top-performing agents submitted to the benchmark. We ask them to find relevant files using only issue text, and then issue text plus file paths. We then run the same setup on BeetleBox and SWE-rebench. Despite both benchmarks involving popular open-source Python projects, models performed 3 times better on SWE-Bench-Verified. They were also 6 times better at finding edited files, without any additional context about the projects themselves. This gap suggests the models may have seen many SWE-Bench-Verified tasks during training. As a result, scores on this benchmark may not reflect an agent's ability to handle real software issues, yet it continues to be used in ways that can misrepresent progress and lead to choices that favour agents that use certain models over strong agent design. Our setup tests the localization step with minimal context to the extent that the task should be logically impossible to solve. Our results show the risk of relying on older popular benchmarks and support the shift toward newer datasets built with contamination in mind.