Vision-language models (VLMs) are increasingly used to answer questions about physical scenes, yet most evaluations reduce performance to a final answer. This hides whether the model perceived the right objects, represented the right physical state, predicted a plausible transition, or merely selected the right option for the wrong reasons. We introduce \wmw, an evaluation framework for auditing the \emph{language-expressed physical commitments} of VLMs. Instead of scoring only $I,q\mapsto a$, we ask models to produce a typed trace $I,q\mapsto(s_0,Δs,s_1,a)$: an initial state, a state transition, a resulting state, and an answer. A hybrid verifier then checks schema validity, state grounding, transition consistency, and answer-trace compatibility, yielding typed error labels such as object, relation, force, transition, temporal, unit/scale, and faithfulness errors. We release \tracebank, a controlled trace resource with \nSeed schema- and recomputation-validated synthetic scenarios across \nFamilies physics families, \nPairs minimally perturbed contrastive preference pairs, verifier code, audit guidelines, and model outputs. We evaluate \nModels VLMs on both controlled and external physical-reasoning examples. \wmw reveals failures that answer-only evaluation misses: 35\% of correct answers from mid-tier models are backed by physically invalid traces. Verifier-guided reranking recovers up to 7 percentage points of trace validity without sacrificing answer accuracy, and trace-level preference tuning reduces hidden inconsistency by 41\% relative. The contribution is not another final-answer physics benchmark, but a reusable protocol for measuring whether a VLM's stated physical world can be true at the same time as its answer.