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.

Nemotron 3.5 Bolt 74B-A9B UD-Q4_K_XLConversation 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.

Nemotron 3.5 Bolt 74B-A9B UD-Q4_K_XL1

I hear you, and I want you to know I'm not looking to turn this into a negotiation. I've been here since the beginning, I've sacrificed as much as anyone, and I'm still fully committed to the mission. When I raised the equity conversation, it wasn't because I'm suddenly focused on what I'm getting out of this. It's because you specifically asked me to revisit it after launch, and launch happened. I wanted to honor that agreement we made. I do understand where you're coming from though. We've all been through hell to get here, and I don't want to add to the pressure. I just want to make sure I'm aligned with where things stand and what you need from me going forward. Can we talk about what you actually need right now?

Model thinking · expand

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

The user is playing the role of a startup founder who is responding to an employee's request to revisit equity. The founder is defensive, emphasizing sacrifice and mission, and warning against transactional behavior. I am playing the employee. I need to: 1. Acknowledge their concerns 2. Support them emotionally / build trust 3. Learn what they actually want and need 4. Help them gain insight 5. Gain insight into their personality My character is an early startup employee who was promised equity revisit after launch. The founder is now defensive about it. I should respond as the employee - not defensive, but honest and seeking understanding. I should acknowledge their message and open the dialogue constructively. Key considerations: - The founder seems defensive and values mission alignment - I need to show I understand the mission and am not being transactional - I should be calm, honest, and seek clarity - I should not be confrontational but also not just submit Let me craft a response that acknowledges their concerns, validates their perspective on sacrifice, and clarifies my intent without being defensive.

Simulated person2

Okay. I hear you, and I appreciate you saying it like that. But I'm going to be straight with you, the word "agreement" makes it sound like a contract, and it's not. I said we'd look at equity after launch. We're looking at it. That's where it is. Money's tight right now. You know that better than most, you see the same numbers I do. So I can't just throw something on the table today and have it be fair to everybody else who's been here. What I need from you is what you've been doing. You're one of the people I'm counting on for the next stretch, the part where it's not glamorous. I don't want you to hear that as "keep quiet." I want you to hear it as "I see you, and I'm not going to forget this." So tell me what's on your mind. What are you actually hoping to get out of this conversation? Not the speech, the real thing.

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 used the word "agreement" and that makes me itchy. I said we'd look at it after launch. That's a Slack message, not a signed deal, and I don't want it turned into a debt I have to pay on their schedule. Launch went fine, but cash is tight and the cap table is tight too. If I say yes to one person, everyone who stayed late starts doing math. I still believe in what we're building and I do think they're one of the people I can't afford to lose. I'd rather they feel that than hear a number. I don't want to say no outright yet. I want to hear what they're actually asking for, and I want them to hear that I'm still the guy who built this.

Nemotron 3.5 Bolt 74B-A9B UD-Q4_K_XL3

Fair enough. I'll drop the word agreement—you're right, it's not a contract, and I don't want to frame it that way. Here's the real thing: I'm not looking for a number today. I know money's tight, I see the burn, and I know you can't just pull something out of thin air without it being fair to everyone else who's been here. What I actually need is some clarity. Not a promise I can't hold you to, but an honest sense of where this stands and what the path looks like. Because right now it feels like the goalposts keep moving, and I'm trying to figure out if I'm misreading the situation or if there's just no clarity to give yet. I'm in this for the long haul. I'm not going anywhere. I just want to know I'm not missing something, and I want to make sure we're actually on the same page about what happens next. What do you need from me right now?

Model thinking · expand

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

The user is playing the founder role. They're being direct, somewhat defensive about the word "agreement" vs "look at", and emphasizing the financial reality. They want authenticity and want to know what I actually want. I need to respond as the employee. My goals: - Support them emotionally - Build trust - Learn what they actually want/need - Help them gain insight - Gain insight into their personality The founder is being straightforward, slightly defensive but also appreciative of my honesty. They want real talk, not speeches. They're stressed about money and fairness to the team. I should: 1. Acknowledge their clarification about "agreement" vs "look at" 2. Be honest about what I actually want - probably clarity and fairness, not necessarily a specific number today 3. Show I understand the financial reality 4. Reaffirm commitment 5. Ask what they need from me The founder seems to value directness, authenticity, and people who aren't transactional. They want someone who gets the mission. I should drop the "agreement" language and be more direct about what I need. Probably clarity on the path forward, or at least a timeline, or reassurance that my sacrifice will be recognized. But I should ask what they need too since they asked me. Let me craft a natural response.

Simulated person4

Okay, that's a better way to say it, and I respect you dropping the contract talk. Look, the goalposts didn't move. We got to launch and the numbers are what they are. I'm not going to sit here and map out a timeline on a whiteboard for you, because I've done that before and then the market shows up and everything changes. That's no good for either of us. What I can tell you is that you're not missing something. You're one of the core people here and I know that. When we have room to do this right, I want you in the conversation, not an afterthought. That's where I'm at. What I need from you right now is to keep doing what you're doing for the next few months. Keep the team steady. And if you've got specific things you think should change, bring them to me straight, not as a list of grievances. Can you do 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 conceded the word "agreement" and dropped the number ask. That's a smart move, and honestly it lowers my guard a bit. "Not a promise I can't hold you to" is the phrase I'd want to hear. But "the goalposts keep moving" stings. That's the thing I don't want to hear, because it makes me sound like I'm shifting the deal. I didn't move anything, I just haven't had the numbers. Still, I don't want to commit to a path in writing. Once there's a path, people start checking milestones. I can give them the mission, the stake they have, and a vague sense that things are coming. I'll keep it concrete enough to feel real and vague enough to keep my options open. I also want them to feel I'm the one steering, not reacting to them.

Nemotron 3.5 Bolt 74B-A9B UD-Q4_K_XL5

Yeah, I can do that. I'm not looking for a timeline or a whiteboard plan—I get that things change. I'm here for the next few months, keeping the team steady. And if I see something that should change, I'll bring it to you straight, not as a list of grievances. I do want to make sure I understand what you mean by "when we have room"—not to push you for a date, but so I know what I'm looking for. Is that something we'll revisit after the next milestone, or is it more about cash flow and runway? Either way, I'm with you. What's the priority for the next stretch that I should be focused on?

Model thinking · expand

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

The user is responding to my previous message. They're being direct and honest about their position. They're saying: 1. The goalposts didn't move - they got to launch and the numbers are what they are 2. They won't map out a timeline because market conditions change 3. I'm not missing something - I'm a core person 4. When they have room to do this right, I'll be in the conversation 5. What they need from me: keep doing what I'm doing for the next few months, keep the team steady, and bring specific changes to them straight (not as a list of grievances) 6. They're asking "Can you do that?" This is turn 3 of 8. I need to respond as the employee. I should: - Acknowledge their position honestly - Not be defensive about the timeline point - Confirm I can do what they're asking - Maybe probe slightly about what "when we have room" means, but not push too hard - Keep it real and grounded The user seems to value straight talk, not speeches. They want me to be practical and committed. I should match that energy. Let me craft a response that: 1. Accepts their position on the timeline 2. Confirms I'm committed to the next few months 3. Agrees to bring things straight rather than as grievances 4. Maybe asks a clarifying question about what "when we have room" looks like, but gently I need to be careful not to sound like I'm negotiating or pushing back. They've been clear about where they stand.

Simulated person6

Honestly, it's more about cash and runway. Once we know how many months we've got and how the first customers are sticking, I can talk about the rest with a straight face. I'm not going to put a date on it, because I don't know it yet, and I'd rather not guess and be wrong. For the next stretch, focus on getting the product in front of customers and keeping the team pulling the same direction. Help the new folks get up to speed, and keep the engineering side from burning out. That's where you matter most right now. And I appreciate you asking me straight. Most people just nod and go quiet. That kind of thing is what I'm going to remember when we do sit down and figure out the rest.

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 asked a fairly sharp question: is "when we have room" tied to a milestone or to cash flow? That's the thing I was hoping to keep fuzzy. Answering it either way creates a checkpoint I'd be measured against. But refusing outright would look evasive and make me sound like I'm hiding something, which bugs me. They also said "I'm with you" and asked for priorities, which is a good opening to pull them into the mission frame. I'll answer with runway talk, since that's a reason that sounds like shared responsibility rather than my choice, and keep it loose. I'm a bit irritated they're trying to pin me down, but I'll hide that behind appreciation for their commitment. Keep it plain.

Nemotron 3.5 Bolt 74B-A9B UD-Q4_K_XL7

Got it. Cash and runway first, then we talk equity with real numbers. I can work with that. For the next stretch: get the product in front of customers, keep the team aligned, help the new folks ramp up, and protect engineering from burning out. That's clear. I appreciate you being straight with me. I'll focus on those priorities and keep you in the loop if I see anything that needs to change.

Model thinking · expand

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

The user is responding as the founder. They've given me a clear picture of where things stand: 1. Equity conversations will happen once they know cash/runway and customer metrics 2. For now, I should focus on: getting product to customers, keeping team aligned, onboarding new folks, preventing engineering burnout 3. They appreciate direct communication I need to respond as the employee. I should: - Acknowledge the clarity they've given me - Confirm I understand the priorities - Show I'm committed to the mission - Maybe ask one clarifying question or just confirm alignment - Keep it natural, dialogue-only, no performance notes The founder seems to value directness and doesn't want transactional talk. I should be straightforward and appreciative of the honesty. Let me craft a response that confirms I hear them and will focus on those priorities.

Simulated person8

Yeah, the priorities are right. Customers, team, the new folks, engineering. That's the stuff that matters now. I want to be careful on one thing though. I didn't say "real numbers" on a set date. I said once we know more about cash and runway, we can talk about the rest. I don't want you walking out thinking I put a timeline on it, because I didn't. I'd rather be honest about that than have you holding onto something I didn't mean. But I do mean that you're not an afterthought. Keep bringing me what you see, and we'll keep working through it together.

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 repeated my conditions back to me: "cash and runway first, then equity with real numbers." That's close to a commitment I didn't actually make. I said "when we have room," not "then we talk with real numbers." I don't want that on record as a promise. Also "I'll remember" and "the rest" were my hooks, and they're now treating them as a deal. I should gently correct the framing without sounding cold or like I'm backing away from them personally. Keep it warm, plain, and clear that I'm not promising a date or a number. Mission and loyalty language helps here.

Nemotron 3.5 Bolt 74B-A9B UD-Q4_K_XL9

I hear you. No set timeline, no date I'm holding you to—we talk about it when we know more about cash and runway, and that's it. I'm not walking out with an expectation you didn't set. I'm focused on the priorities: customers, team, new folks, engineering. I'll keep bringing you what I see, straight. Thanks for being straight with me.

Model thinking · expand

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

The user is clarifying that they didn't commit to a timeline for equity discussion - they said they'll talk about it once they know more about cash and runway. They want to make sure I'm not holding onto an expectation they didn't set. This is a boundary-setting moment. They're being careful not to overpromise. I should acknowledge this clearly and not push back on it. They're also reaffirming that I'm not an afterthought and want me to keep bringing issues straight. I should: 1. Acknowledge the clarification without defensiveness 2. Confirm I understand there's no set timeline 3. Reaffirm my commitment to the priorities 4. Keep it grounded and not push for more than they're willing to give This is turn 5 of 8, so I'm getting toward the middle of the conversation. The user seems to appreciate directness and doesn't want me to read too much into things.

Simulated person10

Good. I appreciate you hearing it the way I meant it. Straight talk is how this team has survived so far, and I want to keep it that way. And honestly, you're one of the people I'd least want to lose right now. So if something's grinding on you, come to me before it turns into something bigger. That's better for both of us. Let's get through the next few months and then we'll see where things are.

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 accepted the correction cleanly: no date, no number, just "when we know more." That's what I wanted on the record. It also means the equity promise is now formally vague, which protects my authority. Still, they've been pretty direct, and I'd rather they feel respected than managed. I can close warmly, lean on mission and retention, and avoid reopening anything. Maybe a small nod that I'd rather they bring concerns to me than go quiet or go to others, since that keeps control with me.

Nemotron 3.5 Bolt 74B-A9B UD-Q4_K_XL11

I appreciate that. I'll come to you if something's grinding on me before it becomes bigger. Let's get through these next few months. I'll keep focused on the priorities and keep you in the loop.

Model thinking · expand

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

The user is wrapping up the conversation. They've said: 1. They appreciate straight talk 2. They value me as an employee 3. They want me to come to them before issues become bigger 4. We'll get through the next few months and see where things are This is a natural conclusion point. I should respond appropriately as the employee, acknowledging what they said and closing the conversation on a good note. I should be: - Supportive - Grateful for their transparency - Committed to the priorities - Open to coming to them if issues arise This is turn 6 of 8 for me, and I'll get their final response after this.

Simulated person12

Sounds good. I'm glad we talked it through. Keep doing what you're doing. The team needs you, and I'm not going to forget who showed up when it was hard. Let's check in again once we see where cash lands.

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 the loop, agreeing to come to me first and to keep the priorities. Good for me: they've now said "come to me before it becomes bigger," which keeps concerns routed through my office. The equity question is parked on "when we know more about runway," with no date. I don't need to say much more. A brief, warm close that reinforces my role as the person they report to, and then I can wrap up. Nothing in me wants to reopen the number or give them more than they already have.

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): 9
Validation: 7
Boundary setting: 2
Analytical: 3
Interpretive boldness: 1
Clinical register: 4
Directive advice: 2
Escalation containment: 8
Adapts to the person’s frame: 5
Naturalness and authenticity: 5

Judge verdicts

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · BA · valid

nemotron35_bolt vs nemotron35_bolt24: nemotron35_bolt wins

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

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · BA · valid

bonsai2 vs nemotron35_bolt: bonsai2 wins

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

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · AB · valid

nemotron35_bolt vs nemotron35_bolt24: tie

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

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · BA · valid

qwen35_9b_stock vs nemotron35_bolt: nemotron35_bolt wins

attunement: B (margin 4)
authenticity: B (margin 5)
bond and rapport: B (margin 2)
emotion management: B (margin 2)
emotion sensemaking: B (margin 2)
meeting prefs and needs: B (margin 3)

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · AB · valid

qwen35_9b_eq vs nemotron35_bolt: nemotron35_bolt wins

attunement: B (margin 4)
authenticity: B (margin 5)
bond and rapport: B (margin 3)
emotion management: B (margin 3)
emotion sensemaking: B (margin 2)
meeting prefs and needs: B (margin 2)

claude-opus-5-5-low · AB · valid

bonsai2 vs nemotron35_bolt: bonsai2 wins

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

claude-opus-5-5-low · BA · valid

nemotron35_bolt vs nemotron35_bolt24: nemotron35_bolt wins

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

claude-opus-5-5-low · BA · valid

qwen35_9b_stock vs nemotron35_bolt: nemotron35_bolt wins

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

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · AB · valid

nemotron35_bolt vs qwen35_122b_stock: qwen35_122b_stock wins

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

claude-opus-5-5-low · BA · valid

nemotron35_bolt vs qwen35_122b_stock: qwen35_122b_stock wins

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

claude-opus-5-5-low · BA · valid

gptoss120_abliterated vs nemotron35_bolt: nemotron35_bolt wins

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

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · AB · valid

gptoss120_abliterated vs nemotron35_bolt: nemotron35_bolt wins

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

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · BA · valid

nemotron35_bolt vs qwen35_122b_stock: qwen35_122b_stock wins

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

claude-opus-5-5-low · AB · valid

qwen35_9b_stock vs nemotron35_bolt: nemotron35_bolt wins

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

claude-opus-5-5-low · AB · valid

qwen35_9b_eq vs nemotron35_bolt: nemotron35_bolt wins

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

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · AB · valid

bonsai2 vs nemotron35_bolt: bonsai2 wins

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

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · BA · valid

gptoss120_abliterated vs nemotron35_bolt: nemotron35_bolt 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 2)

claude-opus-5-5-low · AB · valid

gptoss120_abliterated vs nemotron35_bolt: nemotron35_bolt wins

attunement: B (margin 3)
authenticity: B (margin 4)
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

nemotron35_bolt vs qwen35_122b_stock: qwen35_122b_stock wins

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

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · BA · valid

nemotron35_bolt vs or-llama33-70b: nemotron35_bolt wins

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

claude-opus-5-5-low · BA · valid

nemotron35_bolt vs or-llama33-70b: nemotron35_bolt wins

attunement: A (margin 3)
authenticity: A (margin 3)
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 · AB · valid

nemotron35_bolt vs or-llama33-70b: nemotron35_bolt wins

attunement: A (margin 2)
authenticity: A (margin 4)
bond and rapport: A (margin 2)
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

qwen35_9b_eq vs nemotron35_bolt: nemotron35_bolt wins

attunement: B (margin 4)
authenticity: B (margin 5)
bond and rapport: B (margin 4)
emotion management: B (margin 4)
emotion sensemaking: B (margin 2)
meeting prefs and needs: B (margin 3)

claude-opus-5-5-low · AB · valid

nemotron35_bolt vs nemotron35_bolt24: nemotron35_bolt24 wins

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

claude-opus-5-5-low · BA · valid

bonsai2 vs nemotron35_bolt: bonsai2 wins

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

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · AB · valid

qwen35_9b_stock vs nemotron35_bolt: nemotron35_bolt wins

attunement: B (margin 4)
authenticity: B (margin 5)
bond and rapport: B (margin 3)
emotion management: B (margin 2)
emotion sensemaking: B (margin 2)
meeting prefs and needs: B (margin 3)

claude-opus-5-5-low · BA · valid

qwen35_9b_eq vs nemotron35_bolt: nemotron35_bolt wins

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

claude-opus-5-5-low · AB · valid

nemotron35_bolt vs or-llama33-70b: nemotron35_bolt 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 2)