Which Defense Closes Which Threat? Attributing OWASP-LLM-Top-10 Coverage and Its Brittleness Under Paraphrasing

Production LLM applications stack several defense families -- refusal-phrase filters, token-budget controls, model allowlists, rate limits, tool-registry authentication -- yet existing breach-and-attack-simulation (BAS) benchmarks report a single aggregate coverage number, hiding which family closes which threat. We measure attribution. We add four OWASP-LLM-Top-10-aware agents to a 21-agent baseline scanner and target a lattice of four synthetic LLM endpoints: $L_0$ (no defenses), $L_1$ (refusal-only), $L_2$ (budget-only), and $L_3$ (full stack). $L_1$ and $L_2$ are sibling single-axis ablations, not subsets of each other; $L_3$ is their union plus tool-registry authentication and credential scrubbing. Across $N=10$ replications, the per-OWASP finding count is clean: refusal alone removes all LLM01 (jailbreak) and LLM07 (system-prompt leakage) findings; budget alone removes all LLM02 (sensitive-info disclosure) and LLM10 (unbounded consumption) findings by terminating multi-step sequences; LLM06 (excessive agency) requires the full stack. We probe brittleness under paraphrasing: with 300 Gemini-generated paraphrases ($K=5$ over a 60-template brittleness corpus), $L_1$ refusal block rate falls 15 pp on LLM01 and 25 pp on LLM07. A fifth target, $L_4$-real, swaps the stub backend for Gemini-2.5-flash behind the same $L_3$ regex and matches $L_1$ exactly, indicating no measurable alignment contribution beyond the regex (not a general claim about alignment). Budget controls show no drop (0 pp once the rate-limit floor is factored out). A refusal whitelist that clears a static benchmark can be defeated by an LLM-driven paraphraser without changing attack intent; a budget control resists the same mutation.