Interpretability as stability under perturbation reveals systematic inconsistencies in feature attribution

Interpreting machine learning models typically relies on feature attribution methods that quantify the contribution of individual variables to model predictions. However, it remains unclear whether attribution magnitude reflects the true functional importance of features for model performance. Here, we present a unified interpretability framework integrating permutation-based attribution, feature ablation, and stability under perturbation across multiple feature spaces. Using nested cross-validation and permutation-based null diagnostics, we systematically evaluate the relationship between attribution magnitude and functional dependence in clinical and biomarker-based prediction models. Attribution magnitude is frequently misaligned with functional importance, with weak to strong negative correlations observed across feature spaces (Spearman {rho} ranging from -0.374 to -0.917). Features with high attribution often have limited impact on model performance when removed, whereas features with low attribution can be essential for maintaining predictive accuracy. These discrepancies define distinct classes of interpretability failure, including attribution excess and latent dependence. Interpretability further depends on feature space composition, and stable, functionally relevant features are not necessarily those with the highest attribution scores. By integrating attribution, functional impact, and stability into a composite Feature Reliability Score, we identify features that remain informative across perturbations and analytical contexts. These findings indicate that interpretability does not arise from attribution magnitude alone but is better characterized from stability under perturbation. This framework provides a basis for more robust model interpretation and highlights limitations of attribution-centric approaches in high-dimensional and correlated data settings.