I think what comes up here is a very good question about drills versus real life scenarios, and rote versus thinking learning.
I do not think that just because you have been taught to signal during a valve drill means you will try to do it in a siltout. I DO think that you might catch yourself doing so, and realize it was silly, and take other action. I DO think that if you haven't been drilled to signal, you might forget to do so when you are completely focused on the fact that you are losing gas to the water behind your back, and you're still a thousand feet back in a cave.
Valve drills, when you learn them, are hard. Keeping buoyancy and trim, remembering to signal, keeping eye contact with your teammate, going through the correct sequence . . . it's all a challenge. Fundies level students aren't coping with failures, they're learning procedures. The subsequent classes introduce failure scenarios and require that you cope efficiently with them. This builds on the skills you have learned, but requires more from you than simply regurgitating memorized sequences. Almost everybody, making that leap, will make mistakes and learn from them.
This thread reminds me of talking about the revised valve shutdown sequence that GUE adopted a couple of years ago with Andrew, who was the original architect of Fundies. Andrew has his reasons why he wrote the drill the way he did, and his rationale is that he thinks the original drill helps you to associate which function is related to which post. GUE's rationale for the new drill is that it more closely mimics the sequence in a real failure. My personal feeling is that, if you are dependent on memorized sequences to handle an emergency, you are in a world of hurt; the drills teach you how to manipulate valves while remaining stable in the water column, and nothing more. Handling an actual failure, or even a class scenario, requires a great deal more conscious processing than that.