LLMs serve as the backbone in SpeechLLMs, yet their behavior on spontaneous conversational input remains poorly understood. Conversational speech contains pervasive disfluencies -- interjections, edits, and parentheticals -- that are rare in the written corpora used for pre-training. Because gold disfluency removal is a deletion-only task, it serves as a controlled probe to determine whether a model performs faithful structural repair or biased reinterpretation. Using the DRES evaluation framework, we evaluate proprietary and open-source LLMs across architectures and scales. We show that model performance clusters into stable precision-recall regimes reflecting distinct editing policies. Notably, reasoning models systematically over-delete fluent content, revealing a bias toward semantic abstraction over structural fidelity. While fine-tuning achieves SOTA results, it harms generalization. Our findings demonstrate that robustness to speech is shaped by specific training objectives.