选不同评价指标，谁赢谁输完全反转，揭示药物响应预测的评测陷阱。

Predicting how a cell's transcriptome responds to a drug it has never seen is a core, hard problem in computational cell biology: recent benchmarks show complex models often fail to beat trivial baselines once test compounds are held out by chemistry. We study one cell line and assay, THP-1 cells profiled by DRUG-seq, scored by the active-compound weighted MSE(wMSE) of the VCPI prediction contest. We propose a staged approach: dumb baselines (untreated control and mean training-compound response) that the field keeps failing to beat; non-parametric retrieval (a Tanimoto-weighted average of a held-out compound's nearest training compounds); and a fusion stage combining a frozen chemistry embedding with retrieval-support features to predict the residual over the mean, with an uncertainty head and gene programs. On the released VCPI THP-1 drug-seq data (14,026 training compounds), under a Bemis-Murcko scaffold split, the model ranking inverts depending on the metric. Under an inverse-variance per-gene proxy, a regularized linear regression on Morgan fingerprints appears to win over the deep models, retrieval, and ChemBERTa -- the textbook "simple baselines win" result. But under the contest's true active-set metric (per-(gene, compound) Mejia weights, validated against the official scorer; mean baseline 0.535 vs the organizers' 0.507 reference), that reverses: the deep models win, our fusion decoder significantly beats the linear fingerprint baseline (-0.012 wMSE, paired bootstrap p < 10^-4), and the proxy's winner becomes the worst chemistry-aware predictor. Picking the metric picks the winner -- to our knowledge the first demonstration on real held-out drug chemistry of the metric-calibration effect established largely on genetic perturbation. We release a reproducible pipeline wired to the official scorer that emits a valid submission over the real 1064 x 12,995 grid.