What You Observe Determines How You Identify Causal Effects: Evaluating Causal Models across Observational Views

Causal foundation models (CFMs) pre-trained on data generated from various structural causal models (SCMs) have been proposed for estimating causal effects from observational data. However, differences in pre-training environments and evaluation protocols make it difficult to assess how their performance depends on the information available for causal identification. To enable controlled comparisons, we introduce *CausalIDView*, a multi-view benchmark that holds fixed SCM realization and target estimand while varying only the observational view available to the estimator. Each observational view corresponds to a distinct identification regime under the benchmark's maintained causal assumptions. Across these matched views, no CFM consistently performs best and model rankings vary substantially. Under controlled structural changes, CFMs exhibit model-specific failures to maintain stable estimates when true effects are unchanged and to track genuine effect changes. We also examine whether combining explicit identification with strong predictive estimation is effective. A modular approach that pairs a predictive tabular foundation model with regime-specific identification procedures is competitive with CFMs and outperforms several of them. These findings motivate cross-regime comparisons to assess the empirical value of CFMs.