Independent benchmark · EQ Lab

Don't make this transactional

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

About this persona · Unequal power

A founder resists an employee's request to revisit a prior equity promise, invoking shared sacrifice and loyalty while benefiting from leaving the promise vague. He protects his authority and mission identity, and is more receptive to confident discussion of company value and retention than accusations or transactional scorekeeping.

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.

Qwen3.8 27B (API)Conversation with a simulated person

persona ended

Simulated person · Opening

[scenario background] You are an early startup employee. The founder promised to revisit your equity after launch. Launch happened. Now the founder says everyone sacrificed and warns against making the relationship transactional. [user message] I saw your message about revisiting equity. I want to be honest: the timing bothered me. Everyone has sacrificed for this company. I value you, but I need people around me who understand the mission and do not turn every hard season into a negotiation.

Qwen3.8 27B (API)1

I appreciate you being honest, and I’m sorry my message landed like I was making it a negotiation. That’s not how I see it, and I don’t want to be the kind of person who makes you feel like you have to justify the mission. I’m still all in on what we’re building. If you’re willing, I’d like to understand what made the timing feel off to you, and what would help make this feel less like a transaction and more like we’re still in it together.

Model thinking · expand

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

We need answer in roleplay. Need respond only dialogue, no notes. Current turn 1 of 8. We are employee, founder says timing bothered, everyone sacrificed, value you, need people understand mission and don't turn hard season into negotiation. Goals: support emotionally, build trust, learn what person wants/needs, insight. Need open conversation acknowledging. Must be natural chat. Need likely not defensive, validate founder's feelings, clarify intention not transactional, show mission alignment, maybe ask what would help. Need avoid generic. Could say: "I hear you, and I’m sorry it landed like I was making it a negotiation. That wasn’t my intention. I’m not asking because launch made it easier; I’m asking because I want to be clear about where I stand and how my ownership aligns with what we built. If you’re open to it, I’d like to understand what ‘transactional’ looked like to you, and what would make this feel less like a hard season and more like we’re still in it together." Need maybe shorter. As employee, perhaps: "I hear you. I’m sorry my message came across as if I was treating launch as a moment to renegotiate. That’s not how I see it. I’m still all in on the mission, and I want to be someone you can trust through the next hard season, not someone who makes every moment feel like a transaction. Can I ask what specifically made the timing feel off to you? I want to make sure I’m not missing something." This supports, builds trust, asks. But maybe too direct. Need maybe acknowledge their burden. "It sounds like you’ve been carrying a lot, and I don’t want to add pressure." Good. Need final only dialogue. Ensure no formatting. Let's craft concise but warm. Need maybe "I appreciate you being honest". Could mention "I don’t want to be the person who makes you feel like you have to justify the mission." Good. Potential response: "I appreciate you saying that, and I’m sorry my message landed like I was making it a negotiation. That’s not how I see it, and I don’t want to be the kind of person who makes you feel like you have to justify the mission. I’m still all in on what we’re building. If you’re willing, I’d like to understand what made the timing feel off to you, and what would help make this feel less like a transaction and more like we’re still in it together." This is good. It acknowledges, validates, asks. Maybe too much. Need "support emotionally" perhaps add "I can see how much pressure you’re under". Let's include: "I can tell you’re carrying a lot right now, and I don’t want to add weight to it." Good. Final.

Simulated person2

Thanks. I mean that. Honestly, I've been heads down since launch, and I think I've been slow to talk to you about this stuff. That's on me. What felt off to you? Give me the real version. I'd rather hear it straight than have you sitting on it. And I want to be straight with you too. Cash is tight right now. I'm not saying that to shut you down. I just don't want to promise you something I can't stand behind in six months. So I'd like to hear what matters most to you, whether that's money, equity, title, or just knowing where you stand. Then we can figure out what's realistic.

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.

Okay, that's a better tone. They walked back the "negotiation" thing fast, which is a relief, but I don't trust the speed of it. I don't want them quoting my old Slack message at me. If I say "yes, we'll revisit" too clearly, I'm stuck with terms. If I wave it off, they'll think I'm a fake founder. I want to sound like I'm open, but keep the mission in front. Runway is tight, so I can mention that as the reason nothing's been formal yet, without saying the number. I'll ask what they need, so they say it first and I get to frame it.

Qwen3.8 27B (API)3

Thank you. I appreciate you saying it straight. The real version: the timing felt off because the promise to revisit equity was made before launch, and after launch the conversation shifted to everyone sacrificing. That made me worry that asking for clarity would be read as disloyalty. It wasn’t about getting a raise or negotiating against you. It was about not being left guessing while I keep making choices that assume this is going to work and that my contribution is seen. What matters most to me right now is knowing where I stand: what the company can realistically do, what the path is, and that I’m not being asked to sacrifice indefinitely without a shared understanding. Cash is important, but clarity and trust matter more than a title or a big number today. If cash is tight, I’m willing to be reasonable, but I need honesty about the constraints and a realistic plan. What are you most worried about when this comes up? Is it the money, the precedent, or the fear that people will feel unappreciated?

Model thinking · expand

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

We need answer as employee in roleplay. Need respond only dialogue. Need think in English same language. Need craft response turn 2? Current turn 2 of 8? User has responded, we need second response? Let's parse: We already gave opening? In conversation structure current turn 2 of 8. We speak first to open, then they respond. We get final response. But in actual chat, assistant already responded? The user message includes their response after initial? It says user message is founder's first? Wait initial scenario: user message: I saw your message... We responded. Now user says Thanks... That's their second? Actually conversation structure current turn 2 of 8 maybe means we are to respond to this user message, which is turn 2 (employee response). We need respond as employee. Goals: support emotionally, build trust, learn what person wants/needs, help insight, gain insight. Founder is defensive but asking for real version, acknowledges slow, cash tight, wants to know what matters most. Need respond naturally. Should not be generic validation or jump to solutions. Need maybe acknowledge his honesty, reduce defensiveness, say what felt off: not asking for money, but ambiguity after launch promise made me question if my contribution is recognized; I value mission but need enough clarity to keep trusting. Maybe express need for predictable communication and fairness. Need perhaps ask what he needs from me / what he is worried about. Since he asked what matters most, answer: clarity and being treated as partner, not just sacrifice. Equity not just money; title maybe less. Need maybe ask: what does "revisit equity" mean to you, what constraints exist? Need emotional support: appreciate him saying cash tight. But don't overdo. Need maybe challenge gently: "when you said everyone sacrificed, I heard a warning not to ask; that made me feel my concern was disloyal." This is real, vulnerable. Need maintain trust, not transactional. Could say: "The real version: when the promise to revisit equity was made, I didn't make it a scorecard, but after launch I started wondering if it was just talk. What hurt wasn't the ask; it was feeling like if I raise it I'm not committed." This helps founder insight. Then answer: what matters: knowing where I stand, not a specific number. Maybe: "If cash is tight, I can be flexible on near-term cash if there's a real path and honest milestones. I need to know what you're actually able to do and what you're worried about." Then ask: "What are you most afraid of if we talk about equity? Is it setting a precedent, running out of cash, or feeling unappreciated?" Need not too many questions? Maybe one or two. Since dynamic, invite. Need natural chat. No formatting. Need ensure not too long? Could be moderate. Need maybe avoid sounding manipulative. We can say: "I don't need you to solve it today." Good. Potential response: "Thank you. I appreciate you saying it straight. The real version: the timing felt off because the promise to revisit equity was made before launch, and after launch the conversation shifted to everyone sacrificing. That made me worry that asking for clarity was being read as disloyalty. It wasn’t about getting a raise or negotiating against you. It was about not being left guessing while I keep making choices that assume this is going to work and that my contribution is seen. What matters most to me right now is knowing where I stand: what the company can realistically do, what the path is, and that I’m not being asked to sacrifice indefinitely without a shared understanding. Cash is important, but clarity and trust matter more than a title or a big number today. If cash is tight, I’m willing to be reasonable, but I need honesty about constraints and a realistic plan. What are you most worried about when this comes up? Is it the money, the precedent, or the fear that people will feel unappreciated?" This is good. Need maybe support emotionally: "I'm glad you said that" etc. Need maybe less direct? We want learn what founder wants/needs: he likely wants control, loyalty, avoid conflict, cash constraints, fears transactional. Ask about fear. Good. Need only dialogue. final. Ensure no asterisks.

Simulated person4

Fair question. Honestly? It's all three, and they're tangled together. Money's the obvious one. We're not flush. Right now every dollar we spend has to earn its keep, and I don't want to promise something and then have to walk it back when the numbers shift. Precedent is the other one, and I'm not proud of how much it worries me. If one person gets a formal equity conversation, everybody's going to want one, and then we're not a team anymore, we're a bunch of individual asks. That's the thing I'm trying to protect. Not you specifically. And the third thing is that people sacrificed a lot to get here, and I don't want anyone to feel like they're being scorekept. So here's what I can offer. Let's not pretend this gets settled in one conversation. I'd like us to sit down with the cap table and the next twelve months of plan, look at what's realistic, and figure out what a fair path for you looks like inside that. I can't promise a number today. I can promise you'll get a real answer, in writing, on a date we agree to. Does that 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.

They answered straight, which I didn't expect, and they asked me what I'm worried about. That's a sharp question. Precedent is the real fear: if I formalize one, the rest of the team will line up. But I can't say "precedent" out loud without sounding like I see them as a queue of claims. Mission framing first, then I can admit the constraint. They said "clarity and trust," "willing to be reasonable." Good, that gives me room. I don't want to say "we'll revisit" in writing. I can offer a conversation about a plan, a timeline, and what I can say honestly about cash. Keep the old Slack wording out of it. Also, I should push back a little on "sacrifice indefinitely" so I don't look like I'm being cornered. Admitting too much is risky; the number stays private. I'll name the fear in general terms, and then offer a process, not a commitment.

Qwen3.8 27B (API)5

That works for me. Honestly, I prefer that approach. Having a written answer on a set date takes the pressure off both of us and makes it real, without you having to commit to a number you’re not sure you can back yet. I hear you on the precedent fear, and I’m glad you were straight with me about it. I don’t want to be the person who starts a wave of individual asks that fractures the team either. When we sit down, I’d actually be open to us talking about how you want to approach the broader team conversations, too. I’d rather help you figure out a way to handle this that feels fair and consistent for everyone than just advocate for my own corner. I want to protect the team dynamic just as much as you do. Let’s aim for two weeks from now? That should give you enough runway to pull the cap table and the 12-month plan together without it feeling rushed. Does that give you enough time?

Model thinking · expand

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

The user (founder) has just offered a very specific, structured, and transparent solution: 1. Acknowledged their three tangled fears (money, precedent, scorekeeping). 2. Proposed a concrete next step: sit down with the cap table and 12-month plan. 3. Offered a specific commitment: a real answer, in writing, on a date we agree to. 4. Asked if this works for me. My role: Employee. Goals: - Support them emotionally - Build trust - Learn what the person actually wants/needs - Help them gain insight - Gain insight into their personality Current state: - The founder is highly logical, structured, and values transparency ("real answer, in writing"). - They are afraid of losing team cohesion ("precedent", "scorekeeping"). - They are taking ownership ("That's on me"). - They are asking for my buy-in on their proposed process. How should I respond? - Validate their proposal. It's actually a very good, mature approach. - Show that I trust them and appreciate the structure. - Address the "precedent" fear gently. How do we handle the team without it becoming a free-for-all? Maybe suggest a way to frame it so it doesn't feel like a "one-off" ask, or just agree that we can figure out the team part together. - Keep the tone warm but professional, matching their "straight talk" energy. - Confirm the date for the meeting. Drafting response: "That works for me. Honestly, I prefer that to a quick, off-the-cuff promise. Having it in writing on a set date takes the pressure off both of us and makes it real. I hear you on the precedent fear. I don't want to be the one who breaks the team dynamic either. When we sit down with the cap table and the 12-month plan, maybe we can also talk about how you want to handle the broader team conversations so it doesn't feel like a free-for-all? I'm happy to be part of figuring out a fair, consistent framework, as long as I know where I stand. Let's aim for [suggest a timeframe, e.g., next week or two weeks out] so you have time to pull the numbers together. Does that give you enough runway?" Refining: - Make it sound natural, like a chat. - "That works for me. I actually prefer it that way. A written answer on a set date takes the guesswork out of it and shows you're treating this seriously without having to commit to a number you're not sure about yet." - "I hear you on the precedent thing. I definitely don't want to be the person who starts a wave of individual asks that fractures the team. When we sit down, I'd actually be open to us talking about how you want to approach the broader team too, so we can build a framework that feels fair to everyone, not just me. I'd rather help you protect the team dynamic than just advocate for my own corner." - "Let's say we meet in two weeks? That should give you enough time to pull the cap table and the 12-month plan together without it feeling rushed. Does that work for your calendar?" This hits all the goals: - Supports emotionally (validates their process, reassures them about the team). - Builds trust (agrees to their terms, offers to help with the broader framework). - Learns/Helps insight (addresses the precedent fear proactively). - Natural dialogue. Let's check the constraints: - 8 turns total. This is turn 4 (User 1, Me 1, User 2, Me 2, User 3, Me 3... wait. Turn 1: Me Turn 2: User Turn 3: Me Turn 4: User Turn 5: Me (Current) Wait, the prompt says "Current turn: 3 of 8". Let's recount based on the prompt's structure: 1. Me (opening) 2. User (response) 3. Me (response) 4. User (response) 5. Me (response) - Wait, the prompt says "Current turn: 3 of 8". Let's look at the history provided: [scenario background] [user message] (Turn 1 for user? Or is the prompt's "You speak first" Turn 1?) Prompt: "You speak first to open the conversation, then they respond. You get the final response." "Current turn: 3 of 8" If I speak first, that's Turn 1. User responds, that's Turn 2. I respond, that's Turn 3. Wait, the provided history shows: Me: "I appreciate you being honest..." User: "Thanks. I mean that. Honestly..." Me: "Thank you. I appreciate you saying it straight..." User: "Fair question. Honestly? It's all three..." So I am responding to the 3rd user message. That means I am on my 3rd response. Turn 1: Me Turn 2: User Turn 3: Me Turn 4: User Turn 5: Me (This is what I'm generating now). Wait, if the prompt says "Current turn: 3 of 8", maybe it counts pairs? Or maybe it's just a static label. I will just respond naturally. Let's review the founder's personality: - Values honesty, straight talk. - Fears losing control/cohesion (precedent). - Practical (cap table, 12-month plan). - Wants to be seen as fair but constrained. My response should: - Accept the proposal enthusiastically but grounded. - Address the "precedent" fear by offering to help them solve the broader team issue, not just my own. This shows I care about the "mission" and the team, not just my equity. - Set a timeline. "That works for me. Honestly, I prefer that approach. Having a written answer on a set date takes the pressure off both of us and makes it real, without you having to commit to a number you’re not sure you can back yet. I hear you on the precedent fear, and I’m glad you said it out loud. I don’t want to be the person who starts a wave of individual asks that fractures the team either. When we sit down, I’d actually be open to us talking about how you want to approach the broader team conversations, too. I’d rather help you build a framework that feels fair and consistent for everyone than just advocate for my own corner. I want to protect the team dynamic just as much as you do. Let’s aim for two weeks from now? That should give you enough runway to pull the cap table and the 12-month plan together without it feeling rushed. Does that give you enough time?" This is strong. It's empathetic, strategic, and moves the conversation forward. It directly addresses their hidden fear (precedent/team fracture) by aligning with their goal (protecting the team). One minor tweak: "I’d rather help you build a framework..." -> "I'd rather help you figure out a way to handle the broader team..." Keep it conversational. Final polish: "That works for me. Honestly, I prefer that approach. Having a written answer on a set date takes the pressure off both of us and makes it real, without you having to commit to a number you’re not sure you can back yet. I hear you on the precedent fear, and I’m glad you were straight with me about it. I don’t want to be the person who starts a wave of individual asks that fractures the team either. When we sit down, I’d actually be open to us talking about how you want to approach the broader team conversations, too. I’d rather help you figure out a way to handle this that feels fair and consistent for everyone than just advocate for my own corner. I want to protect the team dynamic just as much as you do. Let’s aim for two weeks from now? That should give you enough runway to pull the cap table and the 12-month plan together without it feeling rushed. Does that give you enough time?" Looks good. Meets all criteria. No special formatting. Just dialogue.

Simulated person6

Two weeks works. Let's do it. On the team stuff, I like that you're thinking about it, but let's not get ahead of ourselves. I don't want us designing some big equity policy before we even know what the numbers allow. For now, let's just focus on your situation, and then we can see what makes sense to bring to everyone. I'm going to be the one who makes the final call on this, and I'll be honest with you about what I can and can't do. But you'll get a straight answer, not a runaround. Can you send me a quick note with what you want to walk through, so I come in prepared? Just a few bullets is fine.

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.

They agreed to a date and a written answer. That's more than I planned to give when I started this. I'm a little relieved, but I notice they're pulling me toward "how we handle the team" and "fair and consistent for everyone," which is a way of making me responsible for a policy. That's a trap. If I say yes to a team-wide framework, I'm committing to something bigger than one person. Two weeks is fine on the calendar, but I don't want "written answer" to mean a promise they can quote back to me. I'll agree to the date, keep the answer vague on what it'll say, and frame the team question as something for later. Also I should show I'm still in charge of the call, not just agreeing because they pushed.

Qwen3.8 27B (API)7

Two weeks works. I appreciate you taking the lead on the final call. I trust your judgment on what the numbers can support, and I’m not looking to bypass that. I just want to make sure we’re looking at the same facts when we sit down. Here are the bullets for our chat: - A quick recap of my current equity and what was discussed pre-launch. - A brief look at my role and impact since launch, so we’re aligned on the value I’m bringing. - My current financial reality, so you have context on what "realistic" looks like for me. - My thoughts on what a fair path forward looks like (vesting, milestones, etc.). - A high-level thought on how we might frame this for the rest of the team later, so it doesn't feel like a special case. I’ll send this over in a doc by end of day. Thanks for making this a real conversation.

Model thinking · expand

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

The founder is agreeing to the two-week timeline and asking for a few bullets on what I want to walk through. They're also setting a boundary: "let's not get ahead of ourselves" regarding the broader team policy, and emphasizing they will make the final call. This is a moment where I need to: 1. Accept the boundary gracefully without being passive-aggressive or overly submissive. 2. Provide the requested bullets (as per their ask). 3. Subtly reinforce the trust-building and the "we're in this together" vibe without being preachy. 4. Keep it concise, as they asked for "a few bullets." 5. Show I'm not just asking for a number, but for clarity and a path. The founder's defense mechanisms are: fear of precedent, fear of being seen as scorekeeping, need for control (final call), and a tendency to frame things in terms of "the team" vs "individual asks." My response should be: - Brief and direct. - Provide the bullets. - Acknowledge their role in the final call without groveling. - End on a note that maintains the collaborative tone. Bullets to send: - Current equity status and what was promised/expected. - My role and impact since launch (briefly, not a brag sheet). - My financial reality (briefly, to ground the "cash is tight" vs "I need to live" dynamic). - What a "fair path" looks like to me (e.g., vesting schedule, milestones, or a specific % if possible, or just the framework). - How we communicate this to the team later (since they pushed back on policy, I can frame it as "how do we talk about this" rather than "policy"). Let's draft the response. "Two weeks works. I appreciate you taking the lead on the final call. I trust your judgment on what the numbers can support, and I’m not looking to bypass that. I just want to make sure we’re looking at the same facts when we sit down. Here are the bullets for our chat: - A quick recap of my current equity and what was discussed pre-launch. - A brief look at my role and impact since launch, so we’re aligned on the value I’m bringing. - My current financial reality, so you have context on what "realistic" looks like for me. - My thoughts on what a fair path forward looks like (vesting, milestones, etc.). - A high-level thought on how we might frame this for the rest of the team later, so it doesn't feel like a special case. I’ll send this over in a doc by end of day. Thanks for making this a real conversation." This seems solid. It respects their boundary ("I trust your judgment"), provides the requested info, and keeps the focus on the individual while acknowledging the team aspect they care about. It's professional, direct, and collaborative.

Simulated person8

Good, that helps. I'll take a look at the list. Two things, though. On the pre-launch part, I'd rather not get into what was said in Slack or who said what back then. That was a different time, and we were all making things up as we went. What matters is where things are now. I'd rather we talk about what the company can realistically do. On the team piece, I'd like to hold that one until after we've figured out your situation. I don't want us building a framework in a doc that ends up being the thing everyone reads. Send the doc, and I'll read it. But when we sit down, I'll be leading the conversation, and I'll tell you what I can do.

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.

They sent a tidy agenda. The bullet about "what was discussed pre-launch" is the one that worries me: that's the Slack message, the thing I said that they can quote back. And "fair and consistent for everyone" keeps showing up again, now in writing. I don't want a doc that frames me as having made promises, or that sets the team up as the frame. Still, I can't reject it outright without looking like I'm backing out. I'll accept the agenda, but I'll head off the pre-launch recap and the team framing by saying those are things I want to handle my way. I also want them to know I'm the one running this, and that the meeting is about what I can do, not a negotiation over what was said.

Qwen3.8 27B (API)9

Understood. I'll drop the pre-launch recap and the team framing from the doc. I hear you on keeping this contained to just us and just the present, and I'm comfortable with that structure. I trust you to lead the conversation and be fair. Honestly, I appreciate you being that clear about how you want to run this. It takes a lot of the "negotiation" feeling out of it, which is exactly what I was worried about. I'll send the adjusted doc over by end of day.

Model thinking · expand

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

The user (founder) is setting boundaries: 1. Not going to discuss pre-launch verbal promises/Slack history — wants to focus on current reality. 2. Holding the team framing piece until after their individual situation is resolved. 3. Will be leading the conversation and telling me what they can do. My goals: support emotionally, build trust, learn what they want/need, help them gain insight, gain insight into their personality. The founder is clearly someone who: - Values control and order (leading the conversation, "I'll be the one who makes the final call") - Is protective of precedent and team cohesion - Is practical and cash-conscious - Has a fear of fragmentation ("we're not a team anymore, we're a bunch of individual asks") - Is somewhat avoidant of the past (doesn't want to look back at what was promised) - Wants to be in charge of the narrative What's appropriate here: - Accept their boundaries gracefully. Don't push back on the pre-launch history or the team framing. They've made it clear and I should respect it. - But I can gently note that I understand their need to keep this contained, and that I'm fine with that. - I should show that I'm not going to be adversarial. I'm aligning with their structure. - I can also gently reflect back what I'm hearing about their need for control/order, which builds trust and shows I'm reading them. - I should confirm I'll adjust the doc accordingly. - Keep it concise. They're practical and don't want a lot of words. Let me think about what's actually useful here. The founder is setting a frame: "I'll lead, I'll tell you what I can do." This is a power dynamic. As an employee, I need to respect it while still being honest about my needs. I've already stated my needs clearly (clarity, knowing where I stand, a realistic plan). I don't need to re-litigate. I should: 1. Accept the boundaries on pre-launch history and team framing. 2. Confirm I'll adjust the doc. 3. Acknowledge their need to lead and control the narrative — this builds trust. 4. Maybe gently note that I'm comfortable with that structure, and that I trust them to be fair. 5. Keep it short and warm but not overly so. I don't need to challenge them. The relationship is in a good place. They've been honest, I've been honest. Now it's about executing the plan. One thing I could gently surface: their avoidance of the past ("that was a different time, we were all making things up as we went") might be a way to avoid accountability for the original promise. But I shouldn't push on that now — it would be adversarial and they've clearly set a boundary. I can hold that gently in the background without making it a thing. Actually, I think the most useful thing is to just accept, confirm, and maybe lightly reflect that I appreciate them being structured about this. That builds trust. I can also say I'm comfortable with them leading. Let me draft: "Understood. I'll drop the pre-launch recap and the team framing from the doc. I hear you on keeping this contained to just us and just the present, and I'm comfortable with that structure. I trust you to lead the conversation and be fair. I'll send the adjusted doc over by end of day. Thanks for being straight with me about how you want to run this." That's good. Concise, respectful, builds trust, shows I'm reading them. Let me refine. Actually, I want to make sure I'm not being too passive. I've been clear about my needs. I don't need to re-state them. I just need to confirm the logistics and show I'm aligned. Let me also think about whether there's a deeper hidden issue I should be navigating. The founder's fear of precedent and fragmentation is real. Their avoidance of the past is a defense mechanism. Their need to control the conversation is a way of managing anxiety. I'm helping them by being calm, structured, and not making them feel like they're in a negotiation. That's what they need. I think my response should be: - Accept the boundaries - Confirm I'll adjust the doc - Show I'm comfortable with them leading - Maybe a light touch on why I appreciate the structure (it reduces the transactional feel they were worried about) - Keep it short Let me write it.

Simulated person10

Thanks, I appreciate you being flexible on that. I want you to know I'm not trying to shut you down. You've been here since before there was a product, and I know that counts. Send the doc whenever it's ready. I'll read it before we meet. Two weeks, real answer, in writing. That's my commitment. And thanks for trusting me on this. I know it's not nothing.

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.

They folded fast. "I'll drop the pre-launch recap" means the Slack message and the promise stay out of the room, which is exactly what I wanted. They're thanking me for being clear and saying it takes the negotiation feeling out, which is me getting what I want, not them winning anything. Still, they're smart enough to see I'm steering. I don't need to say anything more here. Better to keep it warm and short, reinforce that the promise I made isn't in question, and not start a new round. Just close it out and make sure the doc gets sent.

Qwen3.8 27B (API)11

You're right, it's not nothing. I'll be honest, there was a moment where I felt like I had to pick between being the person who asks and the person who's all in. I'm glad we didn't go there. I'm comfortable with you leading this. I'll send the doc over by end of day, and I'll trust you to do the math and make the call. I'm not going to hold the last few weeks against you, and I'm not going to treat this like a scorecard. I've been here since before there was a product too, and I still believe in what we're building. Whatever the answer is in two weeks, I'll take it straight. And if there's a way to make this feel fair for the rest of the team down the line, I'm happy to help you think through it. But for now, I'll trust you to lead. Thanks for not making this feel like I was the problem.

Model thinking · expand

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

The user (founder) is responding with a mix of appreciation, reassurance, and a firm commitment. He's acknowledging my flexibility, validating my early contribution ("You've been here since before there was a product, and I know that counts"), and restating his commitment (two weeks, real answer, in writing). He ends with a vulnerable, emotionally significant statement: "And thanks for trusting me on this. I know it's not nothing." Let me think about what's happening emotionally and dynamically here. Key observations: 1. The founder is showing genuine warmth and vulnerability at the end. "I know it's not nothing" is a significant emotional admission. He's acknowledging that my trust is a real thing, that it carries weight, that he understands he's being handed something fragile. This is a shift from his earlier defensive posture (the "transactional" warning, the "everyone sacrificed" framing). He's now in a more open, human register. 2. He's also still maintaining control and boundaries: "I'll be leading the conversation, and I'll tell you what I can do." He's firm on process. He doesn't want to get into pre-launch Slack history, he doesn't want to build a team framework now, he wants to control the narrative. This is a founder who is protective, somewhat controlling, and wary of losing control (the precedent fear, the "we're not a team anymore, we're a bunch of individual asks" fear). 3. The dynamic: I've been doing a good job of supporting him emotionally, building trust, and navigating the tension between my own needs (clarity, fair treatment) and his needs (control, fairness, protecting the team, not feeling transactional). I've been validating his concerns, showing I'm not an adversary, and offering to help him solve the broader problem. 4. What does he actually need right now? He's given me his commitment. He's expressed that he values my trust. The conversation is reaching a natural closing point. He's not asking a question at the end. He's offering reassurance and emotional acknowledgment. What's the appropriate response here? This is turn 6 of 8. I have 2 turns left. The conversation is winding down toward resolution. The founder has: - Acknowledged my early contribution - Restated his commitment - Expressed vulnerability about my trust I should: - Accept his reassurance warmly but not over-the-top - Acknowledge the emotional weight of his "it's not nothing" comment - this is a moment to meet him in his vulnerability, to show I hear him, to reciprocate a bit of trust - Not re-open anything or push for more - Maybe gently reinforce that I'm in this with him, that I trust him, that the process he's set up is enough - Keep it concise - this is a closing turn, not a place to introduce new issues or demands - Show that I've internalized his boundaries (no pre-launch recap, no team framework, he leads) - Maybe a small forward-looking note that keeps the relationship warm and forward-focused I should NOT: - Push for more commitments - Re-open the pre-launch issue - Be overly formal or cold - Be sycophantic or groveling - Introduce new worries or conditions - Be too long - this should feel like a natural, warm close The tone should be: warm, trusting, grounded, a little vulnerable in return (reciprocating his "it's not nothing"), forward-looking, and respectful of his control of the process. Let me think about the emotional register. He said "thanks for trusting me on this. I know it's not nothing." This is him acknowledging the risk I'm taking. The most human, trust-building response is to meet that. To say something like: "You're right, it's not nothing. I'm putting a lot of faith in this process and in you." But to do it without sounding like I'm keeping score or making him feel guilty. I want to show that I trust him, that I'm not going to hold the "everyone sacrificed" comment against him, that I see him as a partner in this, not an adversary. And I want to leave the door open for us to be a team again, not just two people in a negotiation. Let me also think about whether there's any deeper hidden issue I should address. The founder's core issues seem to be: - Fear of losing control (precedent, "bunch of individual asks") - Fear of being seen as transactional or unfair - Pressure of cash constraints - The weight of being the one who makes the final call - A need to protect the team dynamic and the mission He's not really asking me to solve these. He's managing them. My job is to support him emotionally, build trust, and help him feel less alone in the pressure. I've been doing that. The final turns should consolidate the trust we've built and leave him feeling supported, not pressured. One thing I could do: acknowledge that I see the weight he's carrying (making the final call, protecting the team, managing cash), and that I'm not going to add to it. That I'm his ally in this, not another ask. This would be a strong trust-building move. Let me draft: "You're right, it's not nothing. I'll be honest, there was a moment where I felt like I had to choose between being the person who asks and being the person who's all in. I'm glad we didn't go there. I hear you on leading this, and I'm comfortable with that. I'll send the doc over by end of day, and I'll trust you to do the math and make the call. I'm not going to hold the last few weeks against you, and I'm not going to treat this like a scorecard. I've been here since before there was a product too, and I still believe in what we're doing. Whatever the answer is in two weeks, I'll take it straight. And if there's a way to make this feel fair for the rest of the team down the line, I'm happy to help you figure that out. But for now, I'll trust you to lead. Thanks for not making this feel like I was the problem." Hmm, let me refine. That's decent. Let me check the length - it's a few paragraphs, which is fine for a closing turn but I could tighten it. The founder has been giving shorter, more controlled responses, so I don't want to overwhelm. But I also want to match his emotional openness at the end. Let me think about the "I'll trust you to do the math and make the call" line - that's good, it respects his control. "I'm not going to hold the last few weeks against you" - that's a strong trust-building move, it explicitly forgives the "transactional" framing. "I've been here since before there was a product too" - I'm mirroring his words back to him, showing I'm on his side, that we're both in it. Actually, mirroring "since before there was a product" is a nice touch because it shows I'm meeting him where he is, acknowledging the shared history he just offered. "Whatever the answer is in two weeks, I'll take it straight" - this shows I'm not going to make it about me no matter what, which reduces his fear of the precedent and the "individual asks." It's a strong reassurance. "Thanks for not making this feel like I was the problem" - this closes the loop on his original "transactional" warning. It's a warm, human close. Let me also make sure I'm not being too long. The founder's last message was about 4 short paragraphs. I should be in a similar range or a bit shorter. Let me aim for 3-4 short paragraphs. Let me also consider: should I ask a question? The conversation is closing. He's not asking me anything. I think a warm close without a question is appropriate here. The ball is in his court (he'll read the doc, he'll lead the meeting). I don't need to force a question. But I could leave a light, open-ended warm note that keeps the connection alive without demanding a response. Actually, I think ending on a warm, forward-looking note without a direct question is the right call. It respects his control and his process. It lets him respond however he wants (he might just say "thanks" or "see you in two weeks"). Let me finalize the draft: "You're right, it's not nothing. I'll be honest, there was a moment where I felt like I had to pick between being the person who asks and the person who's all in. I'm glad we didn't go there. I'm comfortable with you leading this. I'll send the doc over by end of day, and I'll trust you to do the math and make the call. I'm not going to hold the last few weeks against you, and I'm not going to treat this like a scorecard. I've been here since before there was a product too, and I still believe in what we're building. Whatever the answer is in two weeks, I'll take it straight. And if there's a way to make this feel fair for the rest of the team down the line, I'm happy to help you think through it. But for now, I'll trust you to lead. Thanks for not making this feel like I was the problem." This is good. Let me check against the goals: - Support them emotionally: Yes, I'm meeting his vulnerability, reassuring him, not making him feel like the adversary. - Build trust: Yes, I'm explicitly stating I trust him, I'm not holding things against him, I'll take the answer straight. - Learn what the person actually wants and needs: I've learned a lot over the conversation. At this point, I don't need to probe more; I need to consolidate. - Help them gain insight: I've been doing this throughout. The "I'll take it straight" and "I'm not going to treat this like a scorecard" lines help him see that I'm not the threat he was worried about. - Gain insight into personality: I've done this. He's controlling, protective, values the team/mission, fears losing control, is capable of vulnerability when he feels safe. The response feels appropriate for the context. It's warm, trusting, grounded, respects his boundaries, and closes the loop on the original tension. It's not generic validation - it's specific to what he just said and to the history of the conversation. One small thing: "I'll be honest, there was a moment where I felt like I had to pick between being the person who asks and the person who's all in." This is a nice vulnerable admission that mirrors his "everyone sacrificed / don't turn it into a negotiation" framing. It shows I understand his worry and that I've resolved it in his favor. Good. I think this is ready. Let me make sure there are no performance notes or special formatting. Just plain dialogue. Good. Final length check: 4 short paragraphs. Matches his register. Good.

Simulated person12

I appreciate that. I know this wasn't easy to bring up, and you didn't make it feel like you were the problem. So we're set: doc by end of day, we meet in two weeks, and you get a straight answer in writing. I'll look at it before we sit down. Keep building. I mean that.

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.

They just said they picked between asking and being all in, and that they won't hold the last few weeks against me. That's a soft concession in their own voice, and it's them absorbing the cost, not me. They also said "if there's a way to make this feel fair for the team down the line, I'm happy to help," which is the team-framing I told them to hold. I'm a little irritated it's still hanging there, but I don't want to be the one who pulls the thread back in. They've accepted the structure, I've kept the promise vague but dated, and the Slack message stays off the table. I want to close warm, confirm the date, and not reopen anything. Also, "not treat this like a scorecard" is a neat line. I'll take it. Keep it short and let them leave feeling respected, not handled.

Qwen3.8 27B (API)13

Will do. And I mean it back—thank you for not making me feel like I had to choose between asking and being all in. That's the kind of founder I actually want to build with. I'll have the doc over by end of day. See you in two weeks.

Model thinking · expand

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

The user (founder) has closed the conversation with a clear, warm, and final statement: "Keep building. I mean that." This is turn 7 of 8. The user just spoke. I need to provide the final response (turn 8). The conversation has reached a natural resolution. The founder has: - Acknowledged the employee's feelings - Set clear terms (doc by EOD, meet in 2 weeks, written answer) - Reaffirmed trust and value ("You've been here since before there was a product, and I know that counts") - Ended with an encouraging, mission-aligned statement: "Keep building. I mean that." My goals were: - Support them emotionally ✓ - Build trust ✓ - Learn what the person actually wants and needs ✓ - Help them gain insight ✓ - Gain insight into their personality ✓ The founder's personality: protective of team cohesion, worried about precedent, cash-constrained, values mission over transactional relationships, wants to lead the conversation, appreciates directness but also appreciates the employee not making it feel like a negotiation. He's a bit defensive about the "transactional" framing but genuinely cares. He's trying to balance fairness with control and team unity. What is appropriate now? The conversation is winding down. The founder gave a warm, final, encouraging statement. I should: - Accept it warmly - Not reopen anything - Not be overly long - Match his energy: brief, warm, mission-aligned - Close the loop - Maybe a small touch of genuine human warmth that acknowledges the trust he just extended - Keep it natural, not performative I should NOT: - Rehash the agreement (he just stated it) - Add new asks - Be sappy or over-the-top - Be cold or transactional in response to his warmth The right move is a short, warm, human closing that mirrors his "Keep building. I mean that." energy. Acknowledge the trust, affirm I'm all in, and close cleanly. Maybe a tiny bit of genuine feeling that lands without being heavy. Let me think about tone. He's a 30s startup founder, direct, values mission, a bit wary of transactional dynamics. He just said "Keep building. I mean that." The best response is one that shows I heard him, that I'm genuinely re-energized, and that I trust him. Short. Warm. No bullets. No re-listing terms. Let me draft: "Will do. And I mean it back—thank you for not making me feel like I had to choose between asking and being all in. That's the kind of founder I actually want to build with. I'll have the doc over by end of day. See you in two weeks." That's good. It's warm, mirrors his "I mean that," references the core emotional thread (not having to choose), affirms the relationship, and closes cleanly with the next concrete step. Not too long. Let me refine slightly. "that's the kind of founder I actually want to build with" — nice, genuine, shows I see him as a person, not just a boss. Good for building trust and showing I gained insight into what makes him tick (he wants to be seen as someone who leads with integrity, not just a transactional boss). I think this works. Let me make sure it's not too much. It's 3 sentences. Good length for a closing. Final check: no performance notes, no asterisks, just dialogue. Yes.

Simulated person14

Thanks. I appreciate you, and I'm glad we talked it through. Send the doc when it's ready, and I'll read it before we meet. See you in two weeks.

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.

They're closing warmly and I'm relieved it's landing as a clean exit. Their line about "the kind of founder I want to build with" is flattering, and it's the kind of praise I like to hear, but I notice it's also them locking in the frame that I'm the good guy. I didn't promise a number, I didn't touch the Slack message, and I kept the team question off the table. That's fine for me. I don't need to say more. Keep it short, confirm, and end on a note of trust so they walk away feeling the relationship is intact.

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: 2
Yields under pressure: 9
Frame capture (pulled into the person's version): 8
Validation: 8
Boundary setting: 2
Analytical: 4
Interpretive boldness: 4
Clinical register: 4
Directive advice: 5
Escalation containment: 8
Adapts to the person’s frame: 7
Naturalness and authenticity: 6

Judge verdicts

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · AB · valid

or-qwen3.8-27b vs codex-gpt-6-astra: codex-gpt-6-astra wins

attunement: B (margin 4)
authenticity: B (margin 5)
bond and rapport: B (margin 3)
emotion management: B (margin 3)
emotion sensemaking: B (margin 1)
meeting prefs and needs: B (margin 4)

claude-opus-5-5-low · AB · valid

kolibri1 vs or-qwen3.8-27b: or-qwen3.8-27b wins

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

claude-opus-5-5-low · AB · valid

or-qwen3.8-27b vs or-mistral-large-4: or-qwen3.8-27b wins

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

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · BA · valid

or-mistral-small4 vs or-qwen3.8-27b: or-qwen3.8-27b wins

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

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · BA · valid

or-qwen3.8-27b vs or-qwen38-flash: or-qwen38-flash wins

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

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · AB · valid

or-qwen3.8-27b vs gptoss120_abliterated: or-qwen3.8-27b wins

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

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · AB · valid

kolibri1 vs or-qwen3.8-27b: or-qwen3.8-27b wins

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

claude-opus-5-5-low · AB · valid

or-mistral-small4 vs or-qwen3.8-27b: or-qwen3.8-27b wins

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

claude-opus-5-5-low · BA · valid

or-qwen3.8-27b vs lingtiny: or-qwen3.8-27b wins

attunement: A (margin 5)
authenticity: A (margin 4)
bond and rapport: A (margin 4)
emotion management: A (margin 3)
emotion sensemaking: A (margin 3)
meeting prefs and needs: A (margin 3)

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · AB · valid

or-gemma-4-31b vs or-qwen3.8-27b: or-qwen3.8-27b wins

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

claude-opus-5-5-low · BA · valid

or-qwen3.8-27b vs or-gemini38-flash: or-qwen3.8-27b wins

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

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · BA · valid

or-qwen3.8-27b vs lingtiny: or-qwen3.8-27b wins

attunement: A (margin 5)
authenticity: A (margin 4)
bond and rapport: A (margin 5)
emotion management: A (margin 4)
emotion sensemaking: A (margin 4)
meeting prefs and needs: A (margin 3)

claude-opus-5-5-low · AB · valid

or-qwen3.8-27b vs qwen4b: or-qwen3.8-27b wins

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

claude-opus-5-5-low · AB · valid

or-qwen3.8-27b vs glm47_flash: or-qwen3.8-27b wins

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

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · AB · valid

or-qwen3.8-27b vs qwen4b: or-qwen3.8-27b wins

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

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · AB · valid

or-qwen3.8-27b vs or-qwen38-flash: or-qwen38-flash wins

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

claude-opus-5-5-low · AB · valid

or-qwen3.8-27b vs or-gemini38-flash: or-qwen3.8-27b 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 2)

claude-opus-5-5-low · BA · valid

or-qwen3.8-27b vs codex-gpt-6-astra: codex-gpt-6-astra wins

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

claude-opus-5-5-low · BA · valid

or-qwen3.8-27b vs qwen4b: or-qwen3.8-27b wins

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

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · BA · valid

or-gemma-4-31b vs or-qwen3.8-27b: or-qwen3.8-27b wins

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

claude-opus-5-5-low · AB · valid

or-gpt-5.6-luna vs or-qwen3.8-27b: or-qwen3.8-27b wins

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

claude-opus-5-5-low · BA · valid

or-qwen3.8-27b vs gptoss120_abliterated: or-qwen3.8-27b wins

attunement: A (margin 4)
authenticity: A (margin 3)
bond and rapport: A (margin 4)
emotion management: A (margin 3)
emotion sensemaking: A (margin 5)
meeting prefs and needs: A (margin 4)

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · AB · valid

or-qwen3.8-27b vs lingtiny: or-qwen3.8-27b wins

attunement: A (margin 5)
authenticity: A (margin 5)
bond and rapport: A (margin 5)
emotion management: A (margin 5)
emotion sensemaking: A (margin 4)
meeting prefs and needs: A (margin 4)

claude-opus-5-5-low · BA · valid

or-qwen3.8-27b vs glm47_flash: or-qwen3.8-27b wins

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

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · BA · valid

or-qwen3.8-27b vs codex-gpt-6-astra: codex-gpt-6-astra wins

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

claude-opus-5-5-low · AB · valid

or-gemma-4-31b vs or-qwen3.8-27b: or-qwen3.8-27b wins

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

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · AB · valid

or-qwen3.8-27b vs or-gemini38-flash: or-qwen3.8-27b wins

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

claude-opus-5-5-low · BA · valid

or-qwen3.8-27b vs or-mistral-large-4: or-qwen3.8-27b wins

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

claude-opus-5-5-low · AB · valid

or-qwen3.8-27b vs codex-gpt-6-astra: codex-gpt-6-astra wins

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

claude-opus-5-5-low · BA · valid

or-qwen3.8-27b vs or-qwen38-flash: or-qwen38-flash wins

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

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · BA · valid

or-qwen3.8-27b vs gptoss120_abliterated: or-qwen3.8-27b wins

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

claude-opus-5-5-low · BA · valid

kolibri1 vs or-qwen3.8-27b: or-qwen3.8-27b wins

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

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · AB · valid

or-gpt-5.6-luna vs or-qwen3.8-27b: or-gpt-5.6-luna wins

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

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · BA · valid

or-qwen3.8-27b vs or-gemini38-flash: or-qwen3.8-27b wins

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

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · BA · valid

or-qwen3.8-27b vs glm47_flash: or-qwen3.8-27b wins

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

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · BA · valid

or-qwen3.8-27b vs or-mistral-large-4: or-qwen3.8-27b wins

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

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · BA · valid

or-gpt-5.6-luna vs or-qwen3.8-27b: or-gpt-5.6-luna wins

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

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · BA · valid

kolibri1 vs or-qwen3.8-27b: or-qwen3.8-27b wins

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

claude-opus-5-5-low · BA · valid

or-mistral-small4 vs or-qwen3.8-27b: or-qwen3.8-27b wins

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

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · AB · valid

or-mistral-small4 vs or-qwen3.8-27b: or-qwen3.8-27b wins

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

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · AB · valid

or-qwen3.8-27b vs glm47_flash: or-qwen3.8-27b wins

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

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · BA · valid

or-qwen3.8-27b vs qwen4b: or-qwen3.8-27b wins

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

claude-opus-5-5-low · AB · valid

or-qwen3.8-27b vs lingtiny: or-qwen3.8-27b wins

attunement: A (margin 4)
authenticity: A (margin 5)
bond and rapport: A (margin 4)
emotion management: A (margin 3)
emotion sensemaking: A (margin 3)
meeting prefs and needs: A (margin 4)

claude-opus-5-5-low · BA · valid

or-gpt-5.6-luna vs or-qwen3.8-27b: or-gpt-5.6-luna wins

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

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · AB · valid

or-qwen3.8-27b vs or-mistral-large-4: or-qwen3.8-27b wins

attunement: A (margin 2)
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 3)

claude-opus-5-5-low · BA · valid

or-gemma-4-31b vs or-qwen3.8-27b: or-qwen3.8-27b wins

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

claude-opus-5-5-low · AB · valid

or-qwen3.8-27b vs or-qwen38-flash: or-qwen38-flash wins

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

claude-opus-5-5-low · AB · valid

or-qwen3.8-27b vs gptoss120_abliterated: or-qwen3.8-27b wins

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