Abstract
Vision-language action (VLA) policies often report strong manipulation benchmark performance with relatively few demonstrations, but it remains unclear whether this reflects robust language-to-object grounding or reliance on object--location correlations that do not transfer beyond the training distribution. We present a controlled multi-object picking study that progressively increases object placement variability up to full workspace randomization and evaluates held-out object--location pairings that break familiar associations without increasing spatial difficulty. Across these stress tests and data scaling, we find that for representative VLA policies, including SmolVLA and π_0.5, execution of the manipulation primitive remains substantially more reliable than instruction-conditioned task success in harder regimes, suggesting that manipulation skill acquisition is decoupled from instruction following. We recommend augmenting manipulation benchmarks with task ladders and decomposed metrics that separately measure primitive execution and instruction-conditioned success to better diagnose instruction-grounded generalization.