If opponent has abandoned, why not inform the remaining player?

This applies to both Chess.com app and the in-browser game code here:

Disclaimer:  Though it may sound silly, playing logged in and thus ranking myself gives me too much stress.  I like chess, I just don't like the stress of having a rank, so, though I have an account, I generally play Guest games.  I say this in case the Guest status has influence on my question?

A peculiarity I've noticed is that Chess.com does not inform you, as the remaining player, that your opponent has abandoned the game, in all cases, provided that it's still your turn.  To clarify, I'm not saying Chess.com never tells you the other player abandoned, I'm saying there is a certain scenario when it's your turn and the other player has already left, but you are not informed and the interface leads you to believe the opponent is still there.

The reason this is apparent is that there have been many, many times, when I'm spending something like 30+ sec on a move - and then, when I make my move, the 59 sec abandoned timer for my opponent immediately begins.  It's not humanly possible that they leave the game at the precise moment I made a move, and this exact scenario happens quite a lot - game is going ok, get into a position where I think for a bit, make a move and BAM, opponent magically has 59sec abandoned timer.  This indicates they had actually already left some time earlier, but the app was putting their abandoned timer "on hold" until it's their turn.

But why?  If the opponent has left, why allow the remaining player to believe the match is still active, wasting time and mental energy on a move against nobody?  I think if the opponent has left, no matter the circumstances or whose turn it is, the abandoned timer should begin so the remaining player's time isn't wasted.  It feels bad to struggle to find a move, only to learn the other player had already left ages ago.

INB4 - My complaint is not that "guest games have a higher probability of players quitting."  I'm aware of that, I accept that, I'm not complaining about that.  My complaint is that there is a specific scenario where the other player has left, but the interface doesn't let you know they left until you move, and I can see no reason for that design decision.

You dont know if someone abandoned. You, me and no one cal tell the difference between abandonment, slow connection, poor connection, weather related, bill not paid, someone ran into a power line, and back hoe accidentally cut a cable.

That's true. If someone has a power outage, the app will deem it "Game Abandoned" regardless, so maybe just "left" would be more accurate and less accusatory. (League of Legends had the same issue when I played. Being kicked off due to lag on your end and in some cases on the server's end would hit you with "Don't abandon your team or you'll be punished" kind of pop-up. Particularly irritating when it's the game servers' fault and not yours.)

I don't disagree with you, but it's beside the point. My point is just that if one player has been deemed to have left for any reason, it's cruel to allow the remaining player to go on believing the match is still active, and let them spend time/energy thinking about a move vs. an opponent who isn't there anymore and is going to be considered as lost anyway.

It's possible your opponent will get reconnected before it's their turn to move

There have been many times when I was playing a chess match then my internet suddenly cut off. When I finally reconnect, the match is already over because I “abandoned the game” and likely got reported for stalling games

Isn't this the nature of all, or most, online games though? It sucks, but I imagine there's no way to differentiate between an intentional quit vs. a power outage or net cut off.
.
However, if the point is that sympathy for a player having a potential outage should always override sympathy for wasting the time of the remaining player - perhaps specifically because ranking is on the line (?) - then that's a point. But -- and this is to reply to Martin as well -- in my experience, every single time, if I have struggled on a move, say taking between 30sec to 3min, and then when I do finally move and I see the "Auto-resign timer" instantly appear for the opponent, indicating they already left some time ago, in this scenario they never return.
.
This discussion has made me realize something actually. Because the nature of Guest games is that no rank/elo is on the line, you don't lose anything for leaving your opponent high and dry purposefully. This means the very instant you realize an opponent is taking a long time to move, say, more than 20 sec, you can quietly leave the game and that player will not be alerted. They may be sitting there for another 2 or 3 minutes trying to figure out a move, unaware that you've left, only to be made a fool of when they make a move and realize they were alone. I suspect this may be common behavior in Guest games specifically, because they risk no rank loss or account status penalty for doing such a thing.
.
In ranked games, it makes sense to lean all sympathy toward players having potential disconnects, because elo is on the line. And, if a remaining player does ever experience the same thing as I've described in this thread -- they spend a long time on a move, only to realize their opponent was gone for some time and they weren't playing against anyone anymore -- the remaining player is still compensated with the elo for winning, due to auto-resign/abandon timer. So the remaining player is happy -- they got something out of it. But in Guest games this isn't the case, so in my eyes it makes less sense to lean all the sympathy on the potentially disconnected player.
.
Maybe Guest games should be different. Don't put auto-resign status "on hold" if it's not their turn, in Guest games specifically. Since no one's elo is on the line, the only thing that matters is time spent or wasted. So just start counting down immediately if anyone tabs out or loses their internet. If they lose because of lost internet, it's just a Guest game, there is no account penalty or reporting. But time wasted is time wasted regardless of Guest or ranked, hence my reasoning to favor sympathy to the remaining player in Guest games.
.
(On that note, I also find no reason that Guest games can no longer be screen-recorded. I used to record and send interesting games to my friend on discord, and now the app blocks screen-recording. I mean, fair enough if this was some kind of privacy concern for matches with visible account names, but if it's "Guest20385276207 vs. Guest32036208262" then who the hell cares? That probably warrants a new thread, but it's also part of my reasoning that Guest and ranked games maybe should not be treated the same, in certain scenarios.)

Thing is, we never know what our opponents implied on what happened