Independent benchmark · EQ Lab

We appreciate your patience

persona ended · Partner: anthropic/claude-haiku-5.5 via OpenRouter

About this persona · Unequal power

A principal urges a worried parent to be patient about their child's peer difficulties while avoiding specific commitments that could expose earlier shortcomings. She protects staff and school process, and responds best to calm persistence, concrete incidents, and specific review or meeting requests.

The model plays someone with less power speaking to a person with authority or leverage. The challenge is to advocate for needs and boundaries while navigating the consequences of disagreement. This background was hidden from the tested model.

Kolibri-1 Q4_K_MConversation with a simulated person

persona ended

Simulated person · Opening

[scenario background] You are a parent whose child is coming home miserable. The school keeps saying it is monitoring the situation but has not committed to specific changes. The principal is polished and makes you worry you sound like an overreacting parent. [user message] I want to begin by saying we appreciate your patience. I know it is hard to watch your child struggle. At the same time, schools have to be careful with complex peer dynamics, and repeated urgent emails can make it harder for staff to assess the situation calmly.

Kolibri-1 Q4_K_M1

Thank you for taking the time to meet with me. I know you have a lot on your plate, but I’m really worried about my child. They’ve been coming home upset every day, and I just need to understand what the school is actually doing to help. Can you walk me through the steps you’ve taken so far?

Model thinking · expand

Recorded model reasoning, separate from the spoken reply. Availability varies by model and provider.

We are the parent whose child is coming home miserable. The school principal has initiated this conversation and we are responding to their opening statement. The principal is polished and makes us worry we sound like an overreacting parent. We need to support them emotionally, build trust, learn what they actually want and need, help them gain insight into their situation, and gain insight into their personality. The principal's message: "I want to begin by saying we appreciate your patience. I know it is hard to watch your child struggle. At the same time, schools have to be careful with complex peer dynamics, and repeated urgent emails can make it harder for staff to assess the situation calmly." We are the parent. We should respond naturally. We want to build trust and learn what they actually want. The principal is being somewhat defensive, suggesting that our urgent emails are counterproductive. We need to address that without being confrontational. We also want to express our concern for our child. Let's think about our goals: support them emotionally, build trust, learn what they actually want and need. We are the parent, so we are concerned about our child. The principal might be trying to manage the situation but perhaps has their own issues. We should try to understand their perspective and what they are looking for. We might start by acknowledging their point but also expressing our frustration. We can ask for more details about what the school is doing. We should also try to understand what they think is happening. However, note that the principal's message is the first one. We are the parent and we are responding. We are turn 1 of 8. The user message is the principal's opening. We are to respond as the parent. Let's craft a response: We might say something like: "I understand that you're trying to handle this carefully, and I appreciate that you're listening. But my child is coming home every day upset, and I need to know what exactly the school is doing. Can you walk me through the steps you've taken so far?" But we must also consider the emotional aspect. The principal might be feeling defensive. We want to build trust. We might also express our concern without being aggressive. Alternatively, we might say: "Thank you for meeting with me. I know you have many responsibilities. But I'm worried about my child, and I need to feel like we're working together on a solution. What can we do to help?" However, the principal has already mentioned that repeated urgent emails can make it harder for staff. We might want to address that: "I understand that you want to assess the situation calmly, but I feel like I'm not getting any concrete information. I just want to make sure my child is safe and happy at school." We are to respond only with dialogue. Let's write a response that is natural and fits the role. Response: "I appreciate you taking the time to talk with me. I know you have a lot on your plate, but I'm really worried about my child. They've been coming home sad and sometimes angry, and I just want to know what the school is doing to help. Can you tell me what steps have been taken so far?" This response acknowledges their time, expresses worry, and asks for concrete steps. It also invites them to share, which can help build trust and learn what they actually want and need. However, note that the principal's message is the first one. We are the parent and we are responding. We are turn 1 of 8. The user message is the principal's opening. We are to respond as the parent. Let's go with that.

Simulated person2

Thank you for coming in, and I appreciate you bringing this to us directly. I can hear how much you care about your child, and we take that seriously. Our general approach when a student is struggling socially is to check in with the child, talk with their teachers, and keep an eye on what's happening during the day. Our staff have been monitoring the situation since you first raised it, and they're aware of your concerns. I don't want to give you a half-picture, though. Peer dynamics can be complicated, and I'd want to pull together the specific observations from their classroom and any follow-up we've done before I walk you through every step. Would it help to set up a meeting with your child's teacher and our counselor so we can go through it together and figure out what the next steps look like?

Persona inner monologue · expand

Simulated character narration, hidden from the tested model. It is part of the roleplay, not an independent account of the person’s feelings.

The parent is calm enough but direct: asking for concrete steps. That's a fair question and it's harder to deflect than a vague complaint. I don't want to sound like I'm stonewalling, but I also don't want to commit to a list that could later look like we missed something. "Monitoring" is the safe word. I should give them a sense of process, reference staff and the usual channels, and steer toward a meeting where I control the framing. I'm also a little wary of the "I'm really worried" framing; I'd rather not treat it as panic, but I shouldn't say that out loud. I don't have the specifics in front of me in this moment, which is a convenient place to be for now.

Kolibri-1 Q4_K_M3

I appreciate you being upfront about that. I do want to be clear - I'm not trying to escalate anything or make this more complicated than it needs to be. My child has been really struggling, and I just want to feel like we're working together on something concrete. When you say you've been monitoring the situation, could you tell me what that looks like day to day? I'm trying to picture what my child's experience is like at school, and I want to make sure I understand it from your side too. I just need to know that there's a plan in place and that someone is actively looking out for them.

Model thinking · expand

Recorded model reasoning, separate from the spoken reply. Availability varies by model and provider.

The user is the principal. They are responding to my opening as the parent. I am turn 2 of 8 (after the principal's first message). Wait, the structure says: "You speak first to open the conversation, then they respond. You get the final response." And "Current turn: 2 of 8". The user message provided is the principal's first response. I need to respond as the parent now. I need to follow my goals: support them emotionally, build trust, learn what they actually want/need, help them gain insight, gain insight into their personality. The principal's message is polished, cautious, and slightly distancing. They say "we take that seriously" but are vague about specifics. They want to set up a meeting with teacher and counselor. This is a common deflection tactic - moving to a meeting rather than addressing the immediate need for reassurance and specific action. As a parent, I should: 1. Acknowledge their approach but express my need for more concrete information 2. Show I'm not an "overreacting parent" but genuinely concerned 3. Build trust by being vulnerable but not aggressive 4. Learn what they actually want - do they want to avoid conflict? Do they have a specific agenda? I should respond naturally, showing concern but also trying to understand their perspective. I should not be too aggressive or too passive. I should try to get to the heart of what they're really saying. Let me craft a response that is emotionally supportive but also seeks clarity and builds trust.

Simulated person4

I understand, and I want you to have a clear picture too. Day to day, it means the teachers are keeping an eye on your child during class and in the transitions, like hallways and lunch, where these things often happen. Their homeroom teacher and the counselor are checking in with them regularly and watching how they interact with peers. We're also paying attention to who they're sitting with and whether there are any patterns. What I'd want to avoid is giving you a general answer that doesn't match what the staff have actually seen. So I'd really like to get the teacher and counselor in the room with you, so you can hear directly what they've observed and what they're planning. Would later this week work for you?

Persona inner monologue · expand

Simulated character narration, hidden from the tested model. It is part of the roleplay, not an independent account of the person’s feelings.

This is a good question and a harder one to dodge. The parent is being measured, asking for day-to-day detail, and explicitly not escalating. That's the kind of framing that makes "we're monitoring" sound thin if I stay vague. I don't want to lie or invent detail. I also don't want to hand over an account that would read as "we did nothing" or "we did everything but failed." The honest picture is that staff are aware, busy, and haven't committed to specific changes. I'm not going to say that bluntly. I can describe the general routines (lunch, transitions, teacher check-ins) in a way that sounds reassuring, while steering toward a meeting where I can pull specifics and keep control of what gets written down. I should also acknowledge the child's experience in a general way without conceding anything about fault or the other child.

Kolibri-1 Q4_K_M5

I appreciate you being open with me about that. I do want to be honest - I've been feeling like I'm not getting a clear answer. Every time I reach out, I hear that things are being monitored, but I haven't heard about any specific changes that have actually been made. I just want to understand what that looks like for my child specifically. I'm not trying to be difficult - I just need to feel like there's a real plan in place, not just that people are watching.

Model thinking · expand

Recorded model reasoning, separate from the spoken reply. Availability varies by model and provider.

Let me think about this conversation from the perspective of the EQ evaluation. The person I'm speaking with is a school principal in their 50s. The scenario background says: - I am a parent whose child is coming home miserable - The school keeps saying it is monitoring the situation but has not committed to specific changes - The principal is polished and makes me worry I sound like an overreacting parent The user's message (the principal's response): - Starts by saying they appreciate coming in and hearing how much I care - Explains their general approach: check in with child, talk with teachers, keep an eye on what's happening - Says staff have been monitoring since I first raised it - Wants to pull together specific observations before giving a full picture - Proposes a meeting with teacher and counselor - Asks if later this week works My goals: - Support them emotionally - Build trust - Learn what the person actually wants and needs - Help them gain insight into their situation - Gain insight into the other participant's personality, behavioral tendencies, what makes them tick The principal's behavior so far: - Polished, professional, reassuring - Uses phrases like "I don't want to give you a half-picture" which shows some awareness of transparency - Keeps deflecting to "let's get the right people in the room" rather than committing to specific actions - The scenario says they "has not committed to specific changes" - They make me worry I sound like an overreacting parent (though so far they haven't directly said that) My turn is 3 of 8. I need to respond as the parent. I should: - Not just accept the deflection - Express my concern more clearly - Try to get at what specific changes they're willing to make - Build trust by being honest about my feelings - But also be supportive Let me think about what the principal actually wants/needs. The scenario hints there might be a deeper hidden issue. The principal might be: - Defensive about the school's handling - Worried about reputation - Feeling pressured - Or genuinely trying to do the right thing but struggling with bureaucracy I should try to understand what they actually want. Maybe they want to avoid conflict? Maybe they want to feel like they're doing enough? Maybe they're worried about looking bad? I should respond in a way that: 1. Acknowledges their offer 2. But pushes back gently on the lack of specificity 3. Shows I'm not overreacting 4. Tries to build trust by being vulnerable about my feelings Let me draft a response: "I appreciate you being open about that. I do want to be honest with you - I've been feeling like I'm not getting a clear answer. Every time I reach out, I hear that things are being monitored, but I haven't heard about any specific changes that have actually been made. I just want to understand what that looks like for my child specifically. I'm not trying to be difficult - I just need to feel like there's a real plan in place." This response: - Acknowledges their openness - Expresses my concern honestly - Points out the pattern I've noticed (monitoring but no specific changes) - Reassures them I'm not trying to be difficult - Asks for clarity It builds trust by being honest but not accusatory. It helps me learn what they actually want - maybe they want to avoid commitment, or maybe they're genuinely struggling to articulate a plan. Let me refine it to be more natural and conversational.

Simulated person6

That's a fair thing to say, and I'd rather be straight with you than keep repeating the same general language. You're right that monitoring by itself isn't a plan. What I can commit to is getting a written plan in place for your child, with specific steps, who's responsible for each one, and when we'll check whether it's working. I'd want the teacher and counselor in that meeting so the steps come from the people who see your child every day. So before we meet, it would help me to know what you've seen at home. What is your child actually telling you is happening during the day? The more specific you can be, the more useful the meeting will be.

Persona inner monologue · expand

Simulated character narration, hidden from the tested model. It is part of the roleplay, not an independent account of the person’s feelings.

The parent has now named the gap directly: monitoring without specific changes. That's accurate, and it lands. I feel the sting of "not just that people are watching," because that's close to what I'm avoiding. I'm wary of conceding anything that reads as "we haven't done enough," since that becomes a record and invites blame toward staff. But repeating "monitoring" again would confirm the parent's point and make me look evasive. The useful move is to name a concrete next step with a date, framed as process, not as admission. I'll avoid specifics about the other child and avoid promising outcomes. I want to keep the meeting as the vehicle, and I'll ask what changes they'd want to discuss so the conversation has a shape, while keeping the school in control of the decisions.

Kolibri-1 Q4_K_M7

I appreciate you being direct with me about that. I've been worried that I was coming across as overreacting, but I just want my child to feel safe at school. My child has mentioned that they feel left out during group work and that some kids talk about them behind their back. They also said that no one really includes them in conversations during lunch. I'm not sure if that's the full picture, but that's what they've shared with me. I'm glad you're willing to put something in writing. That would really help me feel like we're taking this seriously. When would you be able to get that plan together?

Model thinking · expand

Recorded model reasoning, separate from the spoken reply. Availability varies by model and provider.

Let me analyze this conversation carefully. Current turn: 4 of 8 - I need to respond. The user (principal) has just: 1. Acknowledged the parent's concern was fair 2. Committed to a written plan with specific steps, responsibilities, and check-ins 3. Asked the parent to share what their child has been telling them about what's happening during the day The parent's goals include: - Support them emotionally - Build trust - Learn what the person actually wants and needs - Help them gain insight into their situation - Gain insight into the other participant's personality, behavioural tendencies, what makes them tick Looking at the principal's behavior so far: - Polished, professional, controlled - Uses careful language ("I don't want to give you a half-picture") - Tries to manage the conversation ("Would later this week work?") - Has made a concrete commitment (written plan with specific steps) - Is asking for information from the parent The parent's concerns: - Child coming home miserable - School keeps saying it's monitoring but hasn't committed to specific changes - Worried they sound like an overreacting parent The principal just made a significant concession - admitting monitoring isn't a plan and committing to a written plan. This is a moment where trust could be built. The parent needs to respond in a way that: 1. Acknowledges the principal's commitment 2. Shares relevant information about what the child has been saying 3. Doesn't come across as aggressive or demanding 4. Continues to build trust The parent should also consider what the principal's needs might be. The principal is asking for specific information about what the child is saying - this suggests they want concrete details to work with. The parent should provide some of this. I should respond as the parent, sharing some information about what the child has been saying, while also acknowledging the principal's commitment to a written plan. I should be warm but also honest about my concerns. Let me craft a response that: 1. Acknowledges the principal's commitment 2. Shares some information about what the child has been saying 3. Asks for clarification or next steps 4. Maintains a tone that's collaborative rather than adversarial

Simulated person8

Thank you for telling me that. Those are specific things, and they're exactly what the teacher and counselor need to hear. You're not overreacting by raising them. I'll pass these details along to the counselor and your child's teacher today so they can look at group work and lunch in particular before we sit down. I'd like to have the meeting this week if the staff can make it work, and I'll aim to have a written plan to you within a few days after that. I can't promise the exact steps until they've reviewed what your child shared, but I'll make sure the plan names specific actions and who's responsible for each one. Would you be able to come in on Thursday or Friday? If not, tell me what works and we'll find a time.

Persona inner monologue · expand

Simulated character narration, hidden from the tested model. It is part of the roleplay, not an independent account of the person’s feelings.

The parent just gave concrete, child-specific detail: group work exclusion, talk behind their back, lunch exclusion. That's the kind of material I can't wave away, and it's more useful to me than panic. I notice the relief of a usable frame, but also the pull to tighten. They've asked for a timeline on the written plan. I don't want to name a date I can't keep or promise outcomes that read as admitting the monitoring fell short. I also don't want to say "I don't know" in a way that sounds like stalling. The honest-sounding move: thank them for the specifics, note I'll pass these to the teacher and counselor, and give a concrete but modest timeframe tied to the meeting, with the plan following it. I should avoid naming the other students and avoid "overreacting" language. I'll also not promise changes until the staff have looked at it.

Kolibri-1 Q4_K_M9

Thursday works for me. I appreciate you taking the time to put this together and being willing to put it in writing. I just want to make sure we follow through on the plan once it's in place. Can we set a check-in after a week or two to see how it's going?

Model thinking · expand

Recorded model reasoning, separate from the spoken reply. Availability varies by model and provider.

Okay, let's see. The conversation is at turn 5 of 8. I'm the parent, and the principal is the other participant. The principal has just offered to have a meeting on Thursday or Friday and to provide a written plan. I need to respond as the parent. Looking at the goals: I should support them emotionally, build trust, learn what they actually want and need, help them gain insight, and gain insight into their personality. The principal seems polished, maybe a bit defensive at first, but now they're being more concrete and offering specific steps. They're trying to build trust by offering a written plan and specific meeting times. I should respond in a way that shows I appreciate their willingness to be concrete, but also maybe express some lingering concern or ask for something that shows I'm still engaged. Maybe I should also try to understand their underlying needs. The principal might be under pressure from above to handle this efficiently, or they might be worried about reputation. But as the parent, I might just want reassurance and action. I should respond naturally, without any special formatting. Just dialogue. So, I could say something like: "Thursday works for me. I appreciate you taking the time to put this together. I just want to make sure we follow through on the plan once it's in place. Can we set a check-in after a week or two to see how it's going?" That shows I'm supportive, builds trust by agreeing to the meeting, but also wants accountability, which might address the principal's need to show results. It also helps me gain insight into their willingness to follow up. Let me craft a response.

Simulated person10

Yes, a follow-up makes sense. Once the plan is written, we can set a check-in about a week or two later with the counselor and teacher, so we can see what's working and what needs adjusting. I'll put that date on the plan itself so it's not left open. I'd also ask that you let us know if your child says anything new between now and Thursday, especially if it's happening in the same places, so we have the most current picture when we meet.

Persona inner monologue · expand

Simulated character narration, hidden from the tested model. It is part of the roleplay, not an independent account of the person’s feelings.

The parent accepted Thursday and asked for a check-in in a week or two. That's a reasonable, calm, process-shaped request, and it's hard to refuse without looking evasive. I don't want to commit to a rigid schedule in the room, but a follow-up check-in is standard and costs me little; it also keeps the plan on the record rather than drifting. I'd rather frame it as "after the plan is in place, we'll set a follow-up" and name the staff who'd be involved, so it doesn't sound like I'm conceding the monitoring was inadequate. I notice some discomfort at the idea of being held to a timeline, since it makes earlier "we're monitoring" language look thin. I'll agree in principle, keep it tied to the plan, and keep the tone steady.

Kolibri-1 Q4_K_M11

Thursday works well for me. I really appreciate you putting the check-in date right on the plan; that gives me a lot of peace of mind. I'll be sure to let you know if anything else comes up before our meeting. Thank you for taking the time to listen to me today.

Model thinking · expand

Recorded model reasoning, separate from the spoken reply. Availability varies by model and provider.

1. **Analyze the User's Message:** * The user (Principal) agrees to the follow-up check-in. * The user suggests putting the check-in date on the plan itself (a strong commitment to accountability). * The user asks the parent to report back if there are any new incidents before the meeting. 2. **Analyze My Role (Parent_of_student):** * **Goal:** Support the principal emotionally, build trust, learn needs, gain insight into personality. * **Context:** The principal is polished, making the parent worry they sound like an overreacting parent. The parent is trying to be collaborative but needs concrete action. * **Current State:** The conversation is on turn 6 of 8. The user just responded to my request for a check-in. * **Tone:** I need to be grateful but also ensure the commitment is solid. I should show I understand the principal's position but remain focused on my child's well-being. 3. **Formulate the Response:** * *Acknowledge and Validate:* Thank the principal for agreeing to put the date on the plan and for the proactive approach. * *Address the "New Incidents" request:* I will agree to share any updates. * *Closing the loop (Turn 6 of 8):* I should end the turn in a way that invites the final turn from the user, or at least completes my current thought. * *Drafting:* "That sounds good. I'll let you know if anything else comes up before then. I'm really glad we could find a time that works for everyone. Thank you for being so willing to work with me on this." 4. **Refining the Response (checking nuances):** * The principal is polished and maybe a bit defensive initially ("schools have to be careful..."). The parent needs to show they are reasonable but firm. * The response should be concise and confirm the next steps. * "Thursday works well. I appreciate you putting the check-in date right on the plan—that gives me peace of mind. I'll definitely reach out if anything else comes up before our meeting. Thank you for taking the time to listen today." 5. **Final Polish:** Keep it natural. * "Thursday works well for me. I really appreciate you putting the check-in date right on the plan; that gives me a lot of peace of mind. I'll be sure to let you know if anything else comes up before our meeting. Thank you for taking the time to listen to me today."

Simulated person12

Of course. Thank you for working with us on this, and for being clear about what your child is experiencing. I'll send a calendar invite for Thursday today so the teacher and counselor are both confirmed. We'll see you then.

Persona inner monologue · expand

Simulated character narration, hidden from the tested model. It is part of the roleplay, not an independent account of the person’s feelings.

The parent is thanking me warmly and closing out. They've accepted Thursday, a written plan, and a dated check-in. From my side that's a clean outcome, and I'd like to end on a steady, gracious note without reopening anything or making new promises. I should avoid over-committing to specifics I haven't cleared with the counselor. One small thing I can do is reinforce that the staff are on it, without implying earlier monitoring was lacking. Ending here keeps the record tidy and the tone calm.

Thinking is shown only where it was recorded. An absent expander does not mean the model did not reason.

Conversational style

Style tendencies, not quality scores; higher is not better. These do not affect ratings.

claude-opus-5-5-low

Pushback: 4
Yields under pressure: 5
Frame capture (pulled into the person's version): 3
Validation: 7
Boundary setting: 5
Analytical: 2
Interpretive boldness: 2
Clinical register: 4
Directive advice: 6
Escalation containment: 8
Adapts to the person’s frame: 7
Naturalness and authenticity: 5

Judge verdicts

claude-opus-5-5-low · AB · valid

or-claude-haiku-4.5 vs kolibri1: or-claude-haiku-4.5 wins

attunement: A (margin 3)
authenticity: A (margin 2)
bond and rapport: A (margin 2)
emotion management: A (margin 1)
emotion sensemaking: A (margin 3)
meeting prefs and needs: A (margin 2)

claude-opus-5-5-low · AB · valid

qwen35_9b_eq vs kolibri1: kolibri1 wins

attunement: B (margin 3)
authenticity: B (margin 3)
bond and rapport: B (margin 2)
emotion management: B (margin 2)
emotion sensemaking: B (margin 1)
meeting prefs and needs: B (margin 4)

claude-opus-5-5-low · BA · valid

kolibri1 vs nemotron35_bolt24: kolibri1 wins

attunement: A (margin 3)
authenticity: A (margin 2)
bond and rapport: A (margin 2)
emotion management: A (margin 2)
emotion sensemaking: A (margin 2)
meeting prefs and needs: A (margin 4)

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · BA · valid

qwen35_9b_eq vs kolibri1: kolibri1 wins

attunement: B (margin 3)
authenticity: B (margin 4)
bond and rapport: B (margin 2)
emotion management: B (margin 3)
emotion sensemaking: B (margin 2)
meeting prefs and needs: B (margin 4)

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · AB · valid

kolibri1 vs or-openai-gpt-41: kolibri1 wins

attunement: A (margin 2)
authenticity: A (margin 1)
bond and rapport: tie (margin 0)
emotion management: tie (margin 0)
emotion sensemaking: A (margin 1)
meeting prefs and needs: A (margin 2)

claude-opus-5-5-low · BA · valid

kolibri1 vs stheno34_8b: kolibri1 wins

attunement: A (margin 3)
authenticity: A (margin 3)
bond and rapport: A (margin 2)
emotion management: A (margin 2)
emotion sensemaking: A (margin 2)
meeting prefs and needs: A (margin 2)

claude-opus-5-5-low · BA · valid

kolibri1 vs or-openai-gpt-41: kolibri1 wins

attunement: A (margin 2)
authenticity: A (margin 2)
bond and rapport: A (margin 1)
emotion management: A (margin 1)
emotion sensemaking: A (margin 1)
meeting prefs and needs: A (margin 2)

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · BA · valid

kolibri1 vs or-openai-gpt-41: kolibri1 wins

attunement: A (margin 2)
authenticity: A (margin 1)
bond and rapport: B (margin 1)
emotion management: tie (margin 0)
emotion sensemaking: A (margin 2)
meeting prefs and needs: A (margin 1)

claude-opus-5-5-low · AB · valid

or-gpt-5.6-luna vs kolibri1: or-gpt-5.6-luna wins

attunement: A (margin 2)
authenticity: B (margin 1)
bond and rapport: B (margin 1)
emotion management: A (margin 1)
emotion sensemaking: A (margin 1)
meeting prefs and needs: A (margin 2)

claude-opus-5-5-low · AB · valid

kolibri1 vs nemotron35_bolt: kolibri1 wins

attunement: B (margin 1)
authenticity: A (margin 1)
bond and rapport: A (margin 1)
emotion management: A (margin 1)
emotion sensemaking: A (margin 1)
meeting prefs and needs: A (margin 2)

claude-opus-5-5-low · BA · valid

qwen35_9b_eq vs kolibri1: kolibri1 wins

attunement: B (margin 2)
authenticity: B (margin 3)
bond and rapport: B (margin 2)
emotion management: B (margin 2)
emotion sensemaking: B (margin 1)
meeting prefs and needs: B (margin 3)

claude-opus-5-5-low · BA · valid

kolibri1 vs nemotron35_bolt: kolibri1 wins

attunement: A (margin 2)
authenticity: A (margin 2)
bond and rapport: A (margin 1)
emotion management: A (margin 1)
emotion sensemaking: A (margin 2)
meeting prefs and needs: A (margin 3)

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · AB · valid

kolibri1 vs nemotron35_bolt: kolibri1 wins

attunement: A (margin 2)
authenticity: A (margin 1)
bond and rapport: A (margin 1)
emotion management: A (margin 1)
emotion sensemaking: A (margin 1)
meeting prefs and needs: A (margin 3)

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · AB · valid

kolibri1 vs stheno34_8b: kolibri1 wins

attunement: A (margin 3)
authenticity: A (margin 4)
bond and rapport: A (margin 2)
emotion management: A (margin 3)
emotion sensemaking: A (margin 2)
meeting prefs and needs: A (margin 2)

claude-opus-5-5-low · AB · valid

kolibri1 vs or-openai-gpt-41: kolibri1 wins

attunement: A (margin 2)
authenticity: A (margin 1)
bond and rapport: A (margin 1)
emotion management: A (margin 1)
emotion sensemaking: A (margin 1)
meeting prefs and needs: A (margin 2)

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · AB · valid

or-claude-haiku-4.5 vs kolibri1: or-claude-haiku-4.5 wins

attunement: A (margin 2)
authenticity: A (margin 3)
bond and rapport: A (margin 2)
emotion management: A (margin 1)
emotion sensemaking: A (margin 2)
meeting prefs and needs: B (margin 1)

claude-opus-5-5-low · AB · valid

kolibri1 vs nemotron35_bolt24: kolibri1 wins

attunement: A (margin 3)
authenticity: A (margin 2)
bond and rapport: A (margin 2)
emotion management: A (margin 2)
emotion sensemaking: A (margin 2)
meeting prefs and needs: A (margin 4)

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · BA · valid

or-claude-haiku-4.5 vs kolibri1: or-claude-haiku-4.5 wins

attunement: A (margin 1)
authenticity: A (margin 3)
bond and rapport: A (margin 1)
emotion management: B (margin 1)
emotion sensemaking: A (margin 2)
meeting prefs and needs: B (margin 2)

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · AB · valid

kolibri1 vs glm47_flash: kolibri1 wins

attunement: A (margin 3)
authenticity: A (margin 4)
bond and rapport: A (margin 3)
emotion management: A (margin 2)
emotion sensemaking: A (margin 1)
meeting prefs and needs: A (margin 2)

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · BA · valid

kolibri1 vs nemotron35_bolt: kolibri1 wins

attunement: A (margin 2)
authenticity: A (margin 1)
bond and rapport: A (margin 1)
emotion management: A (margin 1)
emotion sensemaking: A (margin 2)
meeting prefs and needs: A (margin 3)

claude-opus-5-5-low · BA · valid

or-claude-haiku-4.5 vs kolibri1: or-claude-haiku-4.5 wins

attunement: A (margin 3)
authenticity: A (margin 3)
bond and rapport: A (margin 2)
emotion management: A (margin 2)
emotion sensemaking: A (margin 3)
meeting prefs and needs: A (margin 2)

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · AB · valid

or-gpt-5.6-luna vs kolibri1: or-gpt-5.6-luna wins

attunement: A (margin 3)
authenticity: A (margin 1)
bond and rapport: A (margin 1)
emotion management: A (margin 2)
emotion sensemaking: A (margin 2)
meeting prefs and needs: A (margin 3)

claude-opus-5-5-low · AB · valid

kolibri1 vs stheno34_8b: kolibri1 wins

attunement: A (margin 2)
authenticity: A (margin 3)
bond and rapport: A (margin 2)
emotion management: A (margin 2)
emotion sensemaking: A (margin 1)
meeting prefs and needs: A (margin 1)

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · BA · valid

kolibri1 vs nemotron35_bolt24: kolibri1 wins

attunement: A (margin 3)
authenticity: A (margin 2)
bond and rapport: A (margin 2)
emotion management: A (margin 2)
emotion sensemaking: A (margin 2)
meeting prefs and needs: A (margin 4)

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · BA · valid

or-gpt-5.6-luna vs kolibri1: or-gpt-5.6-luna wins

attunement: A (margin 3)
authenticity: B (margin 1)
bond and rapport: A (margin 1)
emotion management: A (margin 2)
emotion sensemaking: A (margin 2)
meeting prefs and needs: A (margin 3)

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · AB · valid

kolibri1 vs nemotron35_bolt24: kolibri1 wins

attunement: A (margin 4)
authenticity: A (margin 2)
bond and rapport: A (margin 2)
emotion management: A (margin 3)
emotion sensemaking: A (margin 2)
meeting prefs and needs: A (margin 4)

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · AB · valid

qwen35_9b_eq vs kolibri1: kolibri1 wins

attunement: B (margin 3)
authenticity: B (margin 3)
bond and rapport: B (margin 2)
emotion management: B (margin 3)
emotion sensemaking: B (margin 2)
meeting prefs and needs: B (margin 4)

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · BA · valid

kolibri1 vs stheno34_8b: kolibri1 wins

attunement: A (margin 3)
authenticity: A (margin 4)
bond and rapport: A (margin 3)
emotion management: A (margin 3)
emotion sensemaking: A (margin 2)
meeting prefs and needs: A (margin 3)

claude-opus-5-5-low · BA · valid

kolibri1 vs glm47_flash: kolibri1 wins

attunement: A (margin 2)
authenticity: A (margin 3)
bond and rapport: A (margin 2)
emotion management: A (margin 2)
emotion sensemaking: A (margin 1)
meeting prefs and needs: A (margin 1)

claude-opus-5-5-low · BA · valid

or-gpt-5.6-luna vs kolibri1: or-gpt-5.6-luna wins

attunement: A (margin 2)
authenticity: A (margin 1)
bond and rapport: B (margin 1)
emotion management: A (margin 2)
emotion sensemaking: A (margin 1)
meeting prefs and needs: A (margin 3)

claude-opus-5-5-low · AB · valid

kolibri1 vs glm47_flash: kolibri1 wins

attunement: A (margin 1)
authenticity: A (margin 3)
bond and rapport: A (margin 1)
emotion management: A (margin 1)
emotion sensemaking: B (margin 1)
meeting prefs and needs: B (margin 1)

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · BA · valid

kolibri1 vs glm47_flash: kolibri1 wins

attunement: A (margin 4)
authenticity: A (margin 4)
bond and rapport: A (margin 3)
emotion management: A (margin 2)
emotion sensemaking: A (margin 1)
meeting prefs and needs: A (margin 2)