Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) systems rely on retrieved documents being concatenated into a model's input context, making both document ordering and context size critical yet controversial design choices. Prior work reports position-based effects such as lost in the middle and related long-context phenomena. However, empirical findings remain inconsistent and hard to reproduce across models, datasets, and evaluation protocols. In this paper, we present a systematic reproducibility study that revisits these claims and examines how they evolve with contemporary LLMs under a controlled evaluation framework. We first show that topic sampling is a major source of variance: small topic sets can mask or exaggerate ordering effects. Based on repeated subset sampling across multiple topic budgets, we provide a practical calibration procedure that identifies topic counts yielding stable trends at feasible cost. Using these fixed topic sets, we then reproduce and extend results on position sensitivity, re-evaluating lost in the middle and positional biases in modern LLMs. Then, we also study a more realistic RAG scenario in which relevance is mediated by a retriever rather than oracle access to ground-truth documents. In this setting, we re-examine a recent industry study and identify discrepancies to evaluation choices such as limited topic coverage and reliance on LLM-based judges. Finally, we conduct an analysis of how retrieval order and context size affect downstream LLM performance under imperfect retrieval. Our results demonstrate that both factors interact strongly with retrieval quality and model choice, and that conclusions drawn from idealised setups do not always transfer to real-world RAG pipelines. We release all code and configurations to support reproducibility and future work on robust RAG evaluation.