It is incumbent on instructors and examiners to avoid negative training, or training in such a way that crews make assumptions simply because they are in a simulator. If the simulator has some non-realistic failure scenarios it's better not to go there. There are usually enough other failures in even quite basic simulators to test crew decision making.
A good examiner will work around simulator deficiencies in creative ways. For example, to reinforce that it is severe damage, and knowing that when the engine runs down vibration ceases (if that is what is in that particular simulator's tiny brain), introduce vibration preceding the actual engine 'failure' for long enough for the crew to recognise there is a serious problem. Or trigger fire warning before, simultaneous with, or soon after the failure. Then it's cut & dried what you expect them to do; no excuses for the wrong drill.
If you intend them to action a simple flame-out, at least create conditions that would be conducive to such an event, such as a contaminated runway and icing, or a fuel leak.
But back to the OP - as everyone here agrees, no rotation = severe damage.