The measurement of true progress in multihop question-answering has been muddled by the strong ability of models to exploit artifacts and other reasoning shortcuts. Models can produce the correct answer, and even independently identify the supporting facts, without necessarily connecting the information between the facts. This defeats the purpose of building multihop QA datasets. We make three contributions towards addressing this issue. First, we formalize this form of disconnected reasoning and propose contrastive support sufficiency as a better test of multifact reasoning. To this end, we introduce an automated sufficiency-based dataset transformation that considers all possible partitions of supporting facts, capturing disconnected reasoning. Second, we develop a probe to measure how much can a model cheat (via non-multifact reasoning) on existing tests and our sufficiency test. Third, we conduct experiments using a transformer based model (XLNet), demonstrating that the sufficiency transform not only reduces the amount of non-multifact reasoning in this model by 6.5% but is also harder to cheat -- a non-multifact model sees a 20.8% (absolute) reduction in score compared to previous metrics.