Doubly robust survival estimators require nuisance models that the available information can support. We examine design and estimator dependence in TCGA breast cancer data. Treatment indicators disagree for 337 of 1076 patients; 67.4% have unobserved five-year binary outcomes; and receptor imputation expands the triple-negative subgroup from 156 directly measured patients to 226. We compare chemotherapy initiation by day 90 with non-initiation, using adjusted restricted mean survival time (RMST) over the next 1095 days. Weighting-only estimates are 55 days (95% bootstrap interval: -24, 133) in triple- negative disease (16 deaths) and 38 days (12, 72) in the whole cohort (72 deaths). A Cox outcome-model benchmark yields 108 and 35 days, respectively, demonstrating material model dependence in the smaller population. A parameter-to-information ratio summarizes the burden on complete-outcome regressions within cross-fitting. Its simulation-calibrated warning level is 0.31 (0.28 - 0.35) for the original regime; additional simulations examine covariate-dependent censoring, delayed benefit and nonlinear misspecification. The ratio does not certify estimator validity or replace weight diagnostics. The contribution is a reproducible workflow that separates design, nuisance-model support and estimator stability before interpreting observational survival contrasts.