We investigate how large language models (LLMs) fail when tabular data in an otherwise canonical representation is subjected to semantic and structural distortions. Our findings reveal that LLMs lack an inherent ability to detect and correct subtle distortions in table representations. Only when provided with an explicit prior, via a system prompt, do models partially adjust their reasoning strategies and correct some distortions, though not consistently or completely. To study this phenomenon, we introduce a small, expert-curated dataset that explicitly evaluates LLMs on table question answering (TQA) tasks requiring an additional error-correction step prior to analysis. Our results reveal systematic differences in how LLMs ingest and interpret tabular information under distortion, with even SoTA models such as GPT-5.2 model exhibiting a drop of minimum 22% accuracy under distortion. These findings raise important questions for future research, particularly regarding when and how models should autonomously decide to realign tabular inputs, analogous to human behavior, without relying on explicit prompts or tabular data pre-processing.