arXiv:2610.36813v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Web systems increasingly predict users' decisions from what users say, yet when interests partly conflict, users may promise to cooperate to win the other side's cooperation and then not do so. Sales or service agents that rely on such promises may grant concessions to users who then do not keep their promises, at a cost to the party they represent. We test how LLMs combine users' statements with decision records to predict users' decisions, using 1,260 rounds in which 42 users played a repeated prisoner's dilemma-style game with five agents, each prompted to express a dominant Big Five trait, and could talk with the agent before every decision. Across eight open-weight LLMs, predictions from decision records separated cooperation from defection well (AUC = .80), and adding dialogue brought no detectable gain. With dialogue, predictions agreed with users' statements more often, and errors concentrated on rounds in which users broke their statements: accuracy on rounds with a statement barely changed (.73 to .74), while it rose on kept statements (.76 to .95) and fell sharply on broken ones (.65 to .17). Predictions weighted statements more heavily than users' behavior warranted: when users stated a decision they had not yet made in that game, the predicted probability of keeping it rose from .13 to .69, whereas users kept .40 of such statements. Users' decisions also varied with the agent they faced, but predictions hardly reflected this: users cooperated more with the Agreeableness agent than with the Extraversion agent (70.6% vs. 54.5%), whereas predicted cooperation was nearly identical (64.5% vs. 63.1%). Users also cooperated more with an agent when they themselves scored higher on that agent's trait, whereas predicted cooperation barely changed with these scores. Dialogue-based predictions should therefore weigh users' statements by their earlier decisions and the agent they face.