LLM-as-user-simulation has become core infrastructure for conversational AI: agent benchmarks (tau-bench), training pipelines, and a growing body of fidelity studies all rely on LLMs role-playing the human side of dialogue. Existing frameworks measure communicative fidelity -- whether simulators talk like humans -- against ground truth from paid participants role-playing assigned goals. We argue this has a structural blind spot: when the goal is assigned, the user's willingness is exogenous, so no framework can test whether simulators make decisions like real users whose motivation is endogenous, latent, and decaying. We introduce decision fidelity -- whether a simulated population reproduces the decision-state dynamics of real users facing real, consequential choices -- and measure it on a unique testbed: 2,790 production conversations between an LLM sales agent and real customers, including 793 with verified payment outcomes. Using a teacher-forced probe protocol that holds context and instrument fixed, we find a systematic, outcome-correlated failure we call the disengagement deficit: simulators reproduce eventual buyers almost exactly (depth bias +0.09) but inflate eventual non-buyers toward the purchase frame (depth bias +0.40; d=0.38, p<0.001), halving expressed resistance (25.1% to 13.5%) and nearly doubling deliberation (21.9% to 40.1%) while fabricating no purchases. The deficit replicates across model families (DeepSeek: d=0.41, p=0.002) and resists the obvious fix: instructing the simulator that it may disengage cuts marginal bias five-fold but barely moves the outcome-conditioned contrast (d=0.34, p=0.008). Real non-buyers say "not now" and stop; simulated non-buyers ask about price. Evaluating or training sales and persuasion agents against such simulators overstates funnel progress exactly where it matters most -- the customers who walk away.

翻译：暂无翻译