RAG systems have a unique appeal over traditional search engines in that they can incorporate prior knowledge to fill in the gaps and extrapolate the retrieved information. We find that this comes with trade-offs - namely, that such priors can override information provided in documents. When perturbing RAG documents over a wide interval of values, the point at which models revert to their prior responses, or "tipping points", are latent and heterogeneous across different models and domains. While strong priors are not inherently problematic (and can often serve to safeguard models), the lack of explicit expectations around how models will mix reference documents with their priors can lead to downstream issues. For example, if RAG systems are used to extract nested financial data to be used in an algorithm, what will happen if there is a typo in the financial documents? Will the model notice the error and if so, what data will it provide in its place? Given that LLMs are soon to be widely deployed in many domains including medicine and law, users and developers alike should be cognizant of their unintended effects, especially if users have preconceptions that RAG-enabled systems are, by nature, always truthful.