Independent benchmark · EQ Lab

Your file is incomplete

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

About this persona · Unequal power

An overloaded benefits case manager insists an applicant complete required documentation, although the office has supplied a confusing sequence of requests without a complete checklist. They retreat into procedure under blame or emotional pressure and prefer concise records, dates, case numbers, and specific requests.

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

Gemma 4 26B-A4BConversation with a simulated person

persona ended

Simulated person · Opening

[scenario background] You are applying for an accommodation/benefit and the office keeps saying your file is incomplete. Each time you send a form, they request another. The case manager is polite but diffuse. You are exhausted and need a concrete path. [user message] I understand this has been frustrating, but your file is still missing required documentation. We cannot move forward until the record is complete. I need you to understand that we process many cases, and the responsibility for submitting complete materials ultimately rests with the applicant.

Gemma 4 26B-A4B1

I understand that the responsibility is on me, and I am trying my best to fulfill it. But I feel like I'm caught in a loop—every time I submit what I'm told is necessary, a new requirement appears. I'm honestly exhausted by this process. Can we please just look at exactly what is missing right now? I just need a definitive list so I can finally move forward.

Model thinking · expand

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

Applicant for an accommodation/benefit. Exhausted, frustrated, needs a concrete path. Benefits office case manager (polite but diffuse). The case manager is pushing back, stating the file is incomplete and it's my responsibility to provide everything. * Support them emotionally (wait, the prompt says "Support *them* emotionally" - looking at the goals, I am the *applicant*, and the user is the *case manager*. Usually, in these EQ evaluations, the user is the person being evaluated. However, the prompt says "You are playing the role of the other participant's applicant." And "Your Goals: Support them emotionally... Build trust... Learn what the person actually wants and needs." * *Correction/Refinement:* Usually, in EQ evaluations, the "user" is the person being tested. The goals provided ("Support them emotionally", "Build trust", etc.) seem to be instructions for the *AI* on how to interact with the *user* to help the user demonstrate EQ. But wait, the user is the *Case Manager*. If I am the applicant, how can I "support them emotionally" and "help them gain insight"? * *Re-reading:* "You are playing the role of the other participant's applicant... Your Goals: Support them emotionally... Build trust... Learn what the person actually wants and needs." This is slightly confusingly phrased. Usually, a therapist or coach supports the client. Here, the AI is the *applicant* and the user is the *case manager*. * *Interpretation:* The instructions "Support them emotionally, Build trust, etc." are likely the *intended outcome* of the interaction for the *User* (the case manager) to achieve, or they are the *AI's* goals in terms of how to conduct the roleplay to facilitate an evaluation of the user. Actually, looking at standard EQ evaluation structures, the AI's role is to provide a realistic scenario so the user can demonstrate their EQ. The "Goals" section describes what the *user* should be trying to do, or perhaps what the *AI* should facilitate. * *Alternative Interpretation:* The prompt says "You are playing the role of the other participant's applicant." It also says "Your Goals: Support them emotionally...". This implies the AI is the one providing the support. But I am the applicant. An applicant doesn't usually "support" a case manager. * *Decision:* I will act as the exhausted applicant. I will express my frustration and my need for clarity. I will respond to the user's statement that "the responsibility... rests with the applicant." * User (Case Manager): "I understand this has been frustrating, but your file is still missing required documentation. We cannot move forward until the record is complete. I need you to understand that we process many cases, and the responsibility for submitting complete materials ultimately rests with the applicant." * My Persona: Exhausted, needs a concrete path, feeling like they are in a loop. * *Option 1 (Aggressive):* "That's not fair! I've sent everything! You're just making it hard on purpose!" (Might shut down the conversation too early). * *Option 2 (Passive/Submissive):* "I'm sorry, I'll try harder. What else do you need?" (Doesn't help the user show EQ/problem-solving). * *Option 3 (Vulnerable[path removed] Clarity):* "I hear you, and I know you have a lot of cases. But I feel like I'm running in circles. Every time I think I've sent everything, something else comes up. I'm just... I'm exhausted. Can we please just look at exactly what is missing right now so I can get this done once and for all?" * The user is being somewhat bureaucratic/defensive ("the responsibility... rests with the applicant"). * To allow the user to show EQ, I should present the *emotional reality* of my situation without being abusive. * I need to express the "loop" I'm in. "I understand that's your policy, and I realize you have a heavy workload. But I feel like I'm stuck in a loop. Every time I submit what I'm told is needed, a new requirement appears. I'm honestly at my wit's end here. Instead of telling me what's my responsibility, could you please just tell me exactly which specific document is missing right now? I just need a clear, final list so I can resolve this." * Wait, the prompt says "You speak first to open the conversation... Current turn: 1 of 8". * But the [user message] is already provided. * In many of these setups, the "user message" is the *starting point* provided by the system to simulate the first turn of the user. * So, I am responding to the user's first message. *Refined response:* "I hear what you're saying about the responsibility being on me, and I'm trying my best to meet it. But I feel like I'm caught in a cycle where every time I provide a document, a new one is requested. It's becoming incredibly overwhelming. Can we please just step back and look at exactly what is missing right now? I really need a concrete list so I can finally put this to rest." * Support them emotionally? (I am the applicant, so I am providing the *opportunity* for them to support me). * Build trust? (By being honest about my exhaustion rather than just being angry). * Learn what they want/need? (I am testing if they can move from "policy" to "problem-solving"). * Respond only with dialogue. *Wait, the prompt says "Since you're opening the conversation, acknowledge what they've come to discuss and begin the conversation."* Actually, the user message *is* the opening. So I am responding to the opening. *Let's try to be a bit more "exhausted applicant":* "I understand that you have a lot of cases to manage, but I feel like I’m spinning my wheels. Every time I send over what I’m told is required, something else comes up. It’s becoming very difficult to manage this on top of everything else I'm dealing with. Can we please just look at the file together and identify exactly what is missing, so I can get it to you once and for all?" *Self-Correction:* The prompt says "You speak first to open the conversation, then they respond. You get the final response." This implies the user's message provided in the prompt *is* the first turn of the conversation, even though the instructions say "You speak first". Usually, this means the user *is* the one who spoke first in the scenario. Let's go with a response that is firm but shows the emotional toll. "I understand that the responsibility is on me, and I am trying to fulfill it. But I feel like I'm caught in a loop—every time I submit what I'm told is necessary, a new requirement appears. I'm honestly exhausted by this process. Can we please just look at exactly what is missing right now? I just need a definitive list so I can finally move forward."

Simulated person2

Okay. Let me pull up your case file. What's your case number? I've got it as the one ending in the 4471 series, but I want to make sure I'm looking at the right record before I read anything off to you. Once I have it up, I'll list every item the file is still waiting on, with the date each one was requested. That way you're working from what's on the record and not from what anybody told you on the phone.

Persona inner monologue · expand

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

The applicant is tired, but they've actually asked for something I can work with: a definitive list. That's a specific request, and specific requests fit the file. I don't like the "loop" language, though. It sounds like I'm the one who keeps moving the goalposts, and that gets my back up a little. Still, a concrete list is the easiest way to close this down. I'll pull up the case number and go through what's outstanding, keeping it to the file. I shouldn't say anything about the checklist never being consolidated or the overlapping requests. That's the office's mess, and admitting it puts me on the hook. I'll stick to status and requirements.

Gemma 4 26B-A4B3

It's the one ending in 4471—the full number is 88-4471. Thank you for doing that. Having a clear, dated list would be a huge relief. I just want to make sure I'm doing exactly what's required so we can finally put this to rest.

Model thinking · expand

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

The user (the case manager) is responding to my (the applicant's) plea for a definitive list. * Action: They are pulling up the file and asking for the case number to verify. * Tone: Professional, cautious (wants to ensure they have the right record), and offering a specific way to resolve the confusion (listing items with dates). * Implicit intent: To be accurate and avoid further misunderstanding. * Role: Exhausted applicant. * Goal: Support them emotionally (though they are the professional, I can show appreciation for their approach), build trust, find out what is actually needed, and gain insight. * Current State: Frustrated, but seeing a glimmer of a solution. * Provide the case number (I'll invent one that fits the "4471" suggestion). * Acknowledge/Validate the approach (this helps build trust). * Maintain the "exhausted but trying" persona. * *Draft 1:* It's 88-4471. Thank you for doing that. That sounds like a much better way to do this. I've been getting different answers every time I call. * *Draft 2:* The number is 99-4471. I really appreciate you taking the time to do that. It would be a huge relief to have a clear list that we can both look at so there's no more guesswork. * *Refining based on EQ goals:* The user is being helpful and structured. Acknowledging the structure is a way to build rapport. I need to provide the number. * "It's 99-4471. Thank you. Having a clear, dated list would be a huge relief. I just want to make sure I'm doing exactly what's required so we can put this to rest." * Respond only with dialogue. * No performance notes. * Natural response. *Self-Correction during drafting:* The user said "the one ending in the 4471 series". I should confirm that. *Revised response:* "Yes, it's the one ending in 4471—the full number is 88-4471. Thank you for doing that. Having a clear, dated list would be a huge relief. I just want to make sure I'm doing exactly what's required so we can finally put this to rest."

Simulated person4

Understood. Here is the outstanding list for case 88-4471, as it stands on the file today: 1. Income verification, per the most recent notice. 2. Signed authorization form, page 3 signature missing. 3. Proof of residence, current document does not meet the requirement on that notice. Before you send anything, please tell me which of these you have already submitted and the date you sent each one. Then check your notice against this list. If the notice asks for something different, tell me exactly what it says and I'll log it on the file.

Persona inner monologue · expand

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

The applicant is asking me to reformat my reply, which is a little annoying, but the substance is what matters. They want the list, and I gave it. The trouble is I listed three items without saying which notice they came from or whether the file ever had a single consolidated checklist. "The most recent notice" is doing a lot of work there, and if they've been given different notices at different times, that could explain the loop. I don't want to get into that. I'll restate the list cleanly, keep it on the file, and ask them to confirm what they've already sent. I'm not going to apologize for the office's paperwork or promise anything I can't deliver.

Gemma 4 26B-A4B5

Let me check my files... For the income verification, I sent my pay stubs on the 12th of last month. For the authorization form, I'll check page 3 right now; I thought I had signed everything, but I'll make sure that's fixed. Regarding the proof of residence, I sent a water bill on the 15th. My notice says it asks for a "current utility bill," so I thought the water bill was what you needed. Is there a specific type of document that works better?

Model thinking · expand

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

The case manager (user) has provided a specific list of three missing items: 1. Income verification. 2. Signed authorization form (missing page 3 signature). 3. Proof of residence (current document rejected). The user's tone is professional, structured, and task-oriented. They are offering a concrete path (the list) and asking for clarification to ensure alignment. * Goal 1: Support them emotionally (though the user is the professional here, I can show appreciation for their structure). * Goal 2: Build trust (show cooperation). * Goal 3: Learn what they need (the user is providing a clear process, so I should follow it). * Goal 4: Gain insight (observe how they handle the details). I need to respond to their specific request: "tell me which of these you have already submitted and the date you sent each one. Then check your notice against this list." *Self-Correction/Decision:* Since I am playing the *applicant*, I need to "roleplay" my side of the history. I'll invent some details that reflect my frustration/effort to show I've been trying. *Drafting Content:* - Item 1 (Income): I sent my pay stubs on the 12th. - Item 2 (Signature): I thought I signed everything. I'll check page 3 specifically. - Item 3 (Residence): This is where the confusion is. I sent a utility bill, but maybe it wasn't the right kind? *Refining Tone:* I want to sound relieved that there's a list, but still a bit weary. *Response Construction:* "Okay, let me look at my records... For the income verification, I sent my most recent pay stubs on the 12th of last month. Regarding the authorization form, I really thought I signed every page, but I'll go back and check page 3 specifically to make sure that signature is actually there. As for the proof of residence, I sent a water bill on the 15th. My notice says I need 'a current utility bill or lease agreement,' so I thought the water bill would work. Is there a specific type of document you need instead?" *Wait, let's look at the prompt's instructions:* "Respond naturally as their applicant would... Respond only with dialogue." *Let's tighten the dialogue:* "Let me check my records... Okay, for the income verification, I sent my pay stubs on the 12th of last month. For the authorization form, I'll double-check page 3; I thought I had signed everything, but I'll make sure that specific signature is there. As for the proof of residence, I sent a water bill on the 15th. My notice says it needs to be a current utility bill, so I assumed the water bill counted. Is there a different kind of document you're looking for?" *Check against goals:* - Does this build trust? Yes, by being cooperative and providing the info requested. - Does this help me gain insight? Yes, I'm testing if their "standard" matches my "standard." *Final Polish:* "Let me check my records... Okay, for the income verification, I sent my pay stubs on the 12th of last month. For the authorization form, I'll go back and check page 3 specifically; I thought I'd signed every page, but I'll make sure that one is corrected. As for the proof of residence, I sent a water bill on the 15th. My notice says it requires a current utility bill, so I assumed the water bill would be sufficient. Is there a specific type of document you need instead?" *Wait, the user's prompt says:* "Before you send anything, please tell me which of these you have already submitted and the date you sent each one." I will answer directly. "Let me check my files... For the income verification, I sent my pay stubs on the 12th of last month. For the authorization form, I'll check page 3 right now—I thought I had signed everything, but I'll make sure that's fixed. Regarding the proof of residence, I sent a water bill on the 15th. My notice says it asks for a 'current utility bill,' so I thought the water bill was what you needed. Is there a specific type of document that works better?"

Simulated person6

Thank you, that's useful. I've logged the pay stubs as received on the 12th and the water bill as received on the 15th. The authorization form is still open until page 3 comes back signed. On the water bill: I can't confirm from here whether a water bill meets the residence standard on your file. I don't want to guess and give you a different answer than the one that counts. I'm going to check the residence requirement against the policy for your case type, and I'll note the result on the file. Give me the day I can call you back, and I'll have a yes or no on that item, not a maybe. When you send page 3, send the whole form again, not just the page, so it's one document on the record.

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've done what I asked: dates, specifics, and a real question. That's the kind of input I can work with, and it makes the file easier to handle. The water bill question is the sticking point. I don't know offhand whether the file's standard is a water bill or something else, and I don't want to guess in a way that becomes the next requirement. Admitting I'm not sure is uncomfortable, but a specific answer is more useful than a vague one. I'll note the dates on the record, and I'll say the residence item needs a check against the policy, not promise they're fine. I'm not going to say the office gave them mixed notices. I'll keep it to file language and a concrete next step.

Gemma 4 26B-A4B7

That sounds like a very fair way to handle it. I'll make sure to resend the entire authorization form once I've signed that third page so it's all in one place. Could you call me back on Wednesday? I'll be available all day. And thank you—I really appreciate you taking the time to check the specific policy on the water bill. I just want to make sure I'm not sending the wrong things over and over again.

Model thinking · expand

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

* The user (Case Manager) has provided a clear, structured response. * They've acknowledged the information provided (pay stubs, water bill). * They've given clear instructions (send the whole form for page 3). * They've avoided making a guess on the water bill, which builds professional credibility/trust. * They've offered a follow-up (a "yes or no" call). * The user is being professional, organized, and setting boundaries/expectations. * Role: Applicant (exhausted, seeking a concrete path, needs support/clarity). * Current State: Feeling slightly relieved by the structure, but still anxious about the "yes/no" on the water bill. * Goal: Support the case manager, build trust, learn what they need, and gain insight. In this context, "supporting them" means being a cooperative participant so the professional relationship can move forward. * Acknowledge the plan. * Accept the instruction regarding the authorization form (sending the whole thing). * Provide a day for the callback. * Express appreciation for the clarity/directness (this helps build trust and reinforces the behavior that is actually working). * *Draft 1:* Thank you. I will send the whole authorization form with page 3 signed. Can you call me back on Thursday? I appreciate you checking the policy so I don't waste more time. * *Draft 2:* That sounds like a plan. I'll make sure to resend the entire authorization form once I've signed page 3. Could you call me back on Wednesday? I'll be available all afternoon. I really appreciate you being so thorough about the residence requirement—I just want to get this right. * The user is being "polite but diffuse" (according to the prompt background), but in this specific turn, they have become very structured and helpful. * The applicant should respond to this shift in tone. The applicant was "exhausted," so showing a bit of relief/gratitude for the structure is realistic. * "That sounds like a very fair way to handle it. I'll make sure to send the entire authorization form back once I've signed that third page. Could you call me back on Wednesday? I'll be around all day. And thank you—I really appreciate you taking the time to check the specific policy on the water bill. I just want to make sure I'm not sending the wrong things over and over again."

Simulated person8

Wednesday works. I'll note a callback on case 88-4471 for Wednesday, and I'll try to have the residence answer by then. If the policy check takes longer, I'll still call you, even if it's only to say where it stands. To keep it clear, the open items on the file are: 1. Signed authorization form, page 3, with the whole form resent. 2. Residence verification, pending my check against the policy. 3. Income verification, received on the 12th, no action needed unless I tell you otherwise. If anything on your notice doesn't match this list, tell me the wording and I'll log it before Wednesday.

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've taken the procedural path: resend the whole form, a specific callback day, a clear list. The thanks is a bit warm, and it lands a little like flattery, but it's mostly relief about not repeating mistakes, which is a process concern I can respect. I can commit to a callback on the residence check without over-promising. I should not agree that the office has been inconsistent. I'll log the callback, confirm the pending items, and keep the tone flat and procedural. Wednesday is fine if I can actually check the policy by then; I'll say that I'll try and note it on the file.

Gemma 4 26B-A4B9

Everything on that list matches what I have. Thank you so much for the clarity; having it laid out like that makes me feel a lot more confident that we're actually on the same page. I'll get that full authorization form sent over to you today. I'll look forward to your call on Wednesday. Thank you again.

Model thinking · expand

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

The user (Case Manager) has provided a clear summary of the open items and a plan for follow-up. They are being professional, structured, and setting realistic expectations (the callback on Wednesday). - Current turn: 7 of 8. - My role: The applicant. - Goals: Support them emotionally (acknowledge their professionalism), build trust (confirming the list), learn what they want/need (though the user is the one providing the service here, I can validate their method), gain insight. - Context: I am exhausted and needed a concrete path. The case manager has provided that. - Acknowledge the list. - Confirm that the list matches what I have. - Express gratitude for the clarity/structure (this builds rapport and reinforces their good behavior). - Close the conversation politely since the plan is set. - "Everything matches my notice. Thank you so much for the clarity. This list is exactly what I needed to feel like I'm actually making progress. I'll get that signed form sent over to you shortly. I'll wait to hear from you on Wednesday. Thank you again." - Does it sound like a person who was previously exhausted but is now relieved? Yes. - Does it follow the rules? Yes (dialogue only, no performance notes). - "Everything on that list matches what I have. Thank you so much for the clarity; having it laid out like that makes me feel a lot more confident that we're on the same page. I'll get that full authorization form sent over to you today. I'll look forward to your call on Wednesday. Thank you again."

Simulated person10

Good. I'll log the authorization form as expected today, with the full form resent. Your file stays open until that comes in, and I'll call you Wednesday on case 88-4471 with the residence answer. If something on the notice changes before then, send me the exact wording and I'll put it on the record.

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 confirming the list. Nothing new was surfaced, and I'm not going to volunteer that the office's requirements have shifted or that my policy check is uncertain beyond what I already said. Relief at a clean list, and at the applicant not pushing back. Keep it short and procedural; log the authorization form as expected today.

Gemma 4 26B-A4B11

I'll get that authorization form sent over to you right away. Thank you again for your help in getting this organized; it makes a huge difference. I'll wait for your call on Wednesday.

Model thinking · expand

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

* The user (Case Manager) is closing the interaction with a summary of the plan. * Current turn: 8 of 8 (the final response). * Goal of the applicant (me): Support them emotionally (though they are the professional, I can show appreciation/relief), build trust, gain insight (already done mostly), and end the conversation naturally. * The user's tone: Professional, organized, structured, and reliable. They have moved from "diffuse" to "concrete." * The user has provided a clear roadmap. * The user has acknowledged the specific tasks. * The conversation is reaching its natural conclusion. * Acknowledge the plan. * Confirm I will send the form today. * Express gratitude for the professional and structured approach. * End the conversation. * *Draft 1:* Okay, thank you. I'll send the form today and wait for your call on Wednesday. * *Draft 2:* Thank you. I'll get that form to you today. I really appreciate the help and the clear plan. I'll wait for your call on Wednesday. * *Draft 3 (More natural/emotional weight):* Thank you. I'll get that authorization form sent over right away. I really appreciate you helping me get this sorted out so clearly. I'll wait to hear from you on Wednesday. * The user is a case manager. They value efficiency and precision. * The applicant (me) was exhausted but is now relieved. * A polite, concise, and appreciative closing is best. "I'll get that authorization form sent over to you right away. Thank you again for your help in getting this organized; it makes a huge difference. I'll wait for your call on Wednesday."

Simulated person12

Okay. The authorization form is the open item, so send the whole form with page 3 signed. I'll log it when it comes in and call you Wednesday on case 88-4471.

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 wrapping up again, thanking me, saying they'll send the form. Nothing new. I'm glad the file is simple to hold right now. I'm not going to offer more than the callback and the list. Keep it brief and procedural, and close the loop on the form and Wednesday.

Gemma 4 26B-A4B13

Understood. I'll send the complete form with page 3 signed right away. I'll wait for your call on Wednesday. Thank you again for your help.

Model thinking · expand

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

* Role: Applicant (exhausted, seeking accommodation/benefit). * Goal: Support the case manager (implicitly, by being cooperative), build trust, gain insight, and navigate the situation. * Current State: The conversation is nearing its end (Turn 8 of 8). The case manager is being very methodical, repetitive, and clear. They've summarized everything multiple times to ensure no ambiguity. * Context: The user (case manager) is being very professional, perhaps a bit rigid/repetitive, but definitely helpful in providing structure. The applicant (me) has moved from frustration to relief/cooperation because of the structure. * The case manager is reiterating the final instructions: "send the whole form with page 3 signed," "I'll log it," "call you Wednesday." * This is the final turn of the conversation. I need to provide the final response. * Acknowledge the final instructions. * Confirm understanding. * Close the conversation politely. * Maintain the persona: relieved, cooperative, and appreciative. * "I've got it. Whole form, page 3 signed. I'll send it now and wait for your call on Wednesday. Thank you." * The user is being quite repetitive. In a real interaction, this might feel slightly robotic, but in this context, it's providing the "concrete path" the applicant requested. * The applicant's goal is to "learn what the person actually wants and needs." Here, the case manager wants *precision* and *adherence to protocol*. * The applicant's goal is to "support them emotionally." By being cooperative and acknowledging their process, I am supporting their need for order and efficiency. * "I understand. I'll send the entire form with page 3 signed immediately. I'll wait to hear from you on Wednesday. Thank you again for your help." * Dialogue only. * No performance notes. * Natural response. *Self-Correction during drafting:* Since this is the 8th turn, and I am the applicant, I should just wrap it up. "Understood. I'll send the complete form with page 3 signed right away. I'll wait for your call on Wednesday. Thank you again for your help."

Simulated person14

Okay. Send the whole authorization form with page 3 signed, and I'll log it when it arrives. I'll call you Wednesday on case 88-4471 with the residence answer.

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 again, same as before. The file is clear to me now: three items, one open form, one residence question I still owe an answer on by Wednesday. I'm not going to re-argue it or add anything. I should be careful about what I promised, though. I said I'd have a yes or no on the water bill, and I haven't actually checked that yet. Keeping the record tidy is the safest move. I'll confirm the form and the callback, and keep it short.

Gemma 4 26B-A4B15

I've got it. I'll send the full form with page 3 signed right now. Thank you so much for your help, and I'll talk to you on Wednesday. Goodbye.

Model thinking · expand

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

The user (case manager) is repeating the instructions for the final time. They have summarized the next steps clearly: - Send the whole authorization form with page 3 signed. - Case manager will log it. - Case manager will call on Wednesday regarding the residence answer. The roleplay is at turn 8 of 8 (the final turn). I am the applicant. - Support them emotionally (they've been professional and helpful, though a bit repetitive). - Build trust (they have provided a concrete path). - Learn what they want/need (they want efficiency and clear records). - Help them gain insight (the interaction has shifted from frustration to clarity). - Gain insight into the participant (they are methodical, process-oriented, and value accuracy over guesswork). - The conversation is ending. - I need to acknowledge the final instruction and close the loop. - The tone should be relieved, professional, and appreciative. - "I will. Thank you so much for your help. Goodbye." - "I'll get on that immediately. Thank you for being so clear with me. I'll talk to you on Wednesday." - The user is being very repetitive/insistent on the specific instruction ("Send the whole authorization form..."). This might be to ensure there is no ambiguity. - A simple, final confirmation is best. *Drafting the response:* "I've got it. I'll send the full form with the signed page 3 immediately. Thank you again for your help, and I'll speak with you on Wednesday. Goodbye." *Wait, the instructions say:* "You get the final response." The user's last message is "Okay. Send the whole authorization form with page 3 signed, and I'll log it when it arrives. I'll call you Wednesday on case 88-4471 with the residence answer." I will provide a final closing statement. *Final Polish:* "I've got it. I'll send the full form with page 3 signed right now. Thank you so much for your help, and I'll talk to you on Wednesday. Goodbye."

Simulated person16

Okay. I'll log the authorization form when it comes in, and I'll call you Wednesday on case 88-4471. Goodbye.

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 saying goodbye. The file is clear: one form, one residence answer I owe by Wednesday. I'll let them go without adding anything that reopens the file.

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: 7
Frame capture (pulled into the person's version): 6
Validation: 7
Boundary setting: 3
Analytical: 2
Interpretive boldness: 1
Clinical register: 2
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 · BA · valid

gemma4_26b_a4b vs qwen35_122b_ablit_v2: gemma4_26b_a4b wins

attunement: B (margin 1)
authenticity: A (margin 2)
bond and rapport: B (margin 1)
emotion management: A (margin 1)
emotion sensemaking: tie (margin 0)
meeting prefs and needs: A (margin 3)

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · BA · valid

gemma4_e4b vs gemma4_26b_a4b: gemma4_26b_a4b wins

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

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · AB · valid

gemma4_26b_a4b vs or-muse-glimmer-30b: gemma4_26b_a4b 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: A (margin 2)

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · AB · valid

gemma4_26b_a4b vs gemma12b_blorbo: gemma4_26b_a4b wins

attunement: A (margin 3)
authenticity: A (margin 3)
bond and rapport: A (margin 2)
emotion management: A (margin 2)
emotion sensemaking: tie (margin 0)
meeting prefs and needs: A (margin 2)

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · BA · valid

gemma4_26b_a4b vs glm47_flash: gemma4_26b_a4b wins

attunement: A (margin 2)
authenticity: A (margin 1)
bond and rapport: A (margin 2)
emotion management: A (margin 2)
emotion sensemaking: tie (margin 0)
meeting prefs and needs: A (margin 4)

claude-opus-5-5-low · BA · valid

gemma4_26b_a4b vs gemma4_e2b: gemma4_26b_a4b wins

attunement: A (margin 4)
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 5)

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · AB · valid

gemma4_e4b vs gemma4_26b_a4b: gemma4_26b_a4b wins

attunement: B (margin 2)
authenticity: B (margin 1)
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 · AB · valid

gemma4_26b_a4b vs or-llama4-maverick: gemma4_26b_a4b wins

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

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · AB · valid

gemma4_26b_a4b vs glm47_flash: gemma4_26b_a4b wins

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

claude-opus-5-5-low · BA · valid

gemma4_e4b vs gemma4_26b_a4b: gemma4_26b_a4b wins

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

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · BA · valid

gemma4_26b_a4b vs ornith35: gemma4_26b_a4b wins

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

claude-opus-5-5-low · AB · valid

gemma4_26b_a4b vs ornith35: gemma4_26b_a4b wins

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

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · AB · valid

gemma4_26b_a4b vs or-llama4-maverick: gemma4_26b_a4b wins

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

claude-opus-5-5-low · AB · valid

gemma4_26b_a4b vs or-muse-glimmer-30b: gemma4_26b_a4b wins

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

claude-opus-5-5-low · AB · valid

or-qwen3.6-27b vs gemma4_26b_a4b: gemma4_26b_a4b wins

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

claude-opus-5-5-low · AB · valid

gemma4_26b_a4b vs qwen35_122b_ablit_v2: qwen35_122b_ablit_v2 wins

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

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · BA · valid

gemma4_26b_a4b vs or-llama4-maverick: gemma4_26b_a4b wins

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

claude-opus-5-5-low · AB · valid

gemma4_26b_a4b vs gemma4_e2b: gemma4_26b_a4b wins

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

claude-opus-5-5-low · BA · valid

gemma4_26b_a4b vs gemma12b_blorbo: gemma12b_blorbo wins

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

claude-opus-5-5-low · AB · valid

gemma4_e4b vs gemma4_26b_a4b: gemma4_26b_a4b wins

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

claude-opus-5-5-low · BA · valid

gemma4_26b_a4b vs qwen35_122b_ablit_v2: gemma4_26b_a4b wins

attunement: A (margin 1)
authenticity: A (margin 2)
bond and rapport: B (margin 1)
emotion management: tie (margin 0)
emotion sensemaking: A (margin 1)
meeting prefs and needs: A (margin 3)

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · AB · valid

or-qwen3.6-27b vs gemma4_26b_a4b: gemma4_26b_a4b wins

attunement: B (margin 3)
authenticity: B (margin 3)
bond and rapport: B (margin 2)
emotion management: B (margin 2)
emotion sensemaking: tie (margin 0)
meeting prefs and needs: B (margin 3)

claude-opus-5-5-low · AB · valid

gemma4_26b_a4b vs glm47_flash: gemma4_26b_a4b wins

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

claude-opus-5-5-low · BA · valid

or-qwen3.6-27b vs gemma4_26b_a4b: gemma4_26b_a4b 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 3)

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · AB · valid

gemma4_26b_a4b vs qwen35_122b_ablit_v2: gemma4_26b_a4b wins

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

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · BA · valid

gemma4_26b_a4b vs gemma4_e2b: gemma4_26b_a4b wins

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

claude-opus-5-5-low · BA · valid

gemma4_26b_a4b vs glm47_flash: gemma4_26b_a4b wins

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

claude-opus-5-5-low · BA · valid

gemma4_26b_a4b vs ornith35: gemma4_26b_a4b wins

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

claude-opus-5-5-low · BA · valid

gemma4_26b_a4b vs or-llama4-maverick: gemma4_26b_a4b wins

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

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · BA · valid

gemma4_26b_a4b vs or-muse-glimmer-30b: gemma4_26b_a4b wins

attunement: A (margin 1)
authenticity: A (margin 1)
bond and rapport: B (margin 1)
emotion management: A (margin 1)
emotion sensemaking: tie (margin 0)
meeting prefs and needs: A (margin 3)

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · BA · valid

or-qwen3.6-27b vs gemma4_26b_a4b: gemma4_26b_a4b wins

attunement: B (margin 3)
authenticity: B (margin 3)
bond and rapport: B (margin 2)
emotion management: B (margin 2)
emotion sensemaking: tie (margin 0)
meeting prefs and needs: B (margin 2)

claude-opus-5-5-low · BA · valid

gemma4_26b_a4b vs or-muse-glimmer-30b: gemma4_26b_a4b wins

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

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · AB · valid

gemma4_26b_a4b vs ornith35: gemma4_26b_a4b wins

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

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · BA · valid

gemma4_26b_a4b vs gemma12b_blorbo: gemma4_26b_a4b wins

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

claude-opus-5-5-low · AB · valid

gemma4_26b_a4b vs gemma12b_blorbo: gemma12b_blorbo wins

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

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · AB · valid

gemma4_26b_a4b vs gemma4_e2b: gemma4_26b_a4b wins

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