Multi-component natural language processing (NLP) pipelines are increasingly deployed for high-stakes decisions, yet no existing adversarial method can test their robustness under realistic conditions: binary-only feedback, no gradient access, and strict query budgets. We formalize this strict black-box threat model and propose a two-agent evasion framework operating in a semantic perturbation space. An Attacker Agent generates meaning-preserving rewrites while a Prompt Optimization Agent refines the attack strategy using only binary decision feedback within a 10-query budget. Evaluated against four evidence-based misinformation detection pipelines, the framework achieves evasion rates of 19.95 to 40.34% on modern large language model (LLM) based systems, compared to at most 3.90% for token-level perturbation baselines that rely on surrogate models because they cannot operate under our threat model. A legacy system relying on static lexical retrieval exhibits near-total vulnerability 97.02%, establishing a lower bound that exposes how architectural choices govern the attack surface. Evasion effectiveness is associated with three architectural properties: evidence retrieval mechanism, retrieval-inference coupling, and baseline classification accuracy. The iterative prompt optimization yields the largest marginal gains against the most robust targets, confirming that adaptive strategy discovery is essential when evasion is non-trivial. Analysis of successful rewrites reveals four exploitation patterns, each targeting failures at distinct pipeline stages. A pattern-informed defense reduces the evasion rate by up to 65.18%.