Teleconnections are crucial in shaping climate variability and regional climate change. The fidelity of teleconnections in climate models is important for reliable climate projections. As the observed sample size is limited, scientific judgement is required when models disagree with observed teleconnections. We illustrate this using the example of the relationship between El Niño-Southern Oscillation (ENSO) and the northern stratospheric polar vortex (SPV), where the MIROC6 large ensemble exhibits an ENSO-SPV correlation opposite in sign to observations. Yet the model well captures the upward planetary-wave propagation pathway through which ENSO is known to affect the SPV. We show that the discrepancy arises from the model showing an additional linkage related to horizontal stratospheric wave propagation. Observations do not provide strong statistical evidence for or against the existence of this linkage. Thus, depending on the research purpose, a choice has to be made in how to use the model simulations. Under the assumption that the additional linkage is spurious, a physically-based bias adjustment is applied to the SPV, which effectively aligns the modeled ENSO-SPV relationship with the observations, and thereby removes the model-observations discrepancy in the surface air temperature response. However, if one believed that the additional linkage was genuine and was undersampled in the observations, a different approach could be taken. Our study emphasizes that caution is needed when concluding that a model is not suitable for studying teleconnections. We propose a forensic approach and argue that it helps to better understand model performance and utilize climate model data more effectively.