Generative models are increasingly deployed as substitutes for real data in downstream scientific workflows, yet standard evaluation criteria remain focused on marginal distribution matching. We argue that this represents a fundamental gap: downstream inference is rarely a marginal operation, and a model that passes every univariate diagnostic can still produce structurally unreliable synthetic data. We introduce covariance-level dependence fidelity, measured by D_Sigma(P,Q) = ||Sigma_P - Sigma_Q||_F, as a principled, computable criterion for evaluating whether a generative model preserves the joint structure of data beyond its univariate marginals. Three results formalise this criterion. First, marginal fidelity provides no constraint on dependence structure: D_Sigma can be made arbitrarily large while all univariate marginals match exactly. Second, covariance divergence induces quantifiable downstream instability, including sign reversals in population regression coefficients. Third, bounding D_Sigma provides positive stability guarantees for dependence-sensitive procedures such as PCA via Davis-Kahan-type bounds. Empirical validation across three domains, image data (Fashion-MNIST VAE, n = 60,000), bulk RNA-seq (TCGA-BRCA, n = 1,111), and a small-sample stress test (Alzheimer's gene expression, n = 113), shows that D_Sigma/delta consistently distinguishes structure-discarding from structure-preserving generators in cases where standard marginal diagnostics show little separation, confirming that covariance-level fidelity provides information orthogonal to existing evaluation metrics across domains and sample sizes.