We report on a series of task-based interviews in which nine mathematicians were asked to evaluate a series of six mathematical arguments, purportedly produced either by fellow mathematicians or undergraduate students. In this paper, we attend to the role of context in mathematicians' responses, leading to four themes in expectations when evaluating the proofs that they read. First, mathematicians' evaluations of identical arguments were sensitive to researchers' manipulation of authorship, with most accepting arguments purportedly produced by a colleague while taking a more critical view of that same argument if produced by an undergraduate student. Our thematic analysis of interview responses led to three context-based factors influencing mathematicians' responses when evaluating student-produced texts: "course goals, instructors' expectations, and assessment type." In the final section, we consider implications for researchers focused on understanding common practice amongst mathematicians as well as the pedagogic consequences of our findings for practice in the classroom.