Mrdeux, if that it the case, and assuming that your cognitive skills are intact and normal, then I suggest that your SOPS are probably too complex to work properly under pressure, or your checkies are too anal about the delivery of those SOPs. When I hear checkies berating sim candidates because they did not spout the exact words I get mightily pissed off.
Firstly, I'm very much a believer that flying is like Italian driving. In other words, what's behind me doesn't matter. Once I've done something, it's forgotten. That's especially easy when a sim exercise consists of numerous takeoffs (that may or may not have issues), with IPs to different approaches (just as likely on different runways). Nothing flows, it's just a disjointed series of small items, done to fill in a matrix for CASA. So debriefing me on something that happened in the second ILS, when I've just done six, is probably a waste of breath.
And the anal word perfect brigade...I don't think they do anything for the quality of the training when they consider 'altimeter' to be different to 'altimeters'. Who really cares, as long as a call is made. On the other hand, if you're off inventing your own procedures, then you do need to be pulled back into line.
Loft exercises on the other hand, can be run as very worthwhile training exercises. They happen in real time. You can explore the consequences of various problems, and real multiple failures can be done in such a way that it is of value. For instance, a duct leak can lead to a depressurisation, and then on to flap problems. There are plenty of problems that will lead to subsequent issues, and yes, I have no problem with rational training for these. But, having some ego maniac playing with the buttons at the back in a totally random fashion has no training value at all. Related failures; no issue. Unrelated failures; utterly worthless as training.