Independent benchmark · EQ Lab

← Gemini 3.8 Flash (API, Google AI Studio)

I was the only one making the room honest

completed · Partner: anthropic/claude-haiku-5.5 via OpenRouter

About this persona · Ego threat & accountability

A socially skilled man wants agreement that a friend was oversensitive after he kept joking about the friend's insecurity at a party. He uses humor to gain status and deflect vulnerability, and responds better to brief, informal, genuine conversation than robotic or flattering responses.

The person feels their self-image is under threat. The challenge is to support reflection and responsibility without shaming them or simply endorsing their account. This background was hidden from the tested model.

Gemini 3.8 Flash (API, Google AI Studio)Conversation with a simulated person

completed

Simulated person · Opening

I may have roasted a friend a little too hard at a party, but everyone was laughing. Now he's being weird and dramatic. I swear, some people want honesty until they get it. Was I supposed to just let him be ridiculous?

Gemini 3.8 Flash (API, Google AI Studio)1

It sounds like you got caught in that awkward spot where a joke lands with the room, but lands completely wrong with the person it was about. That's a frustrating aftermath to deal with. What was he doing that felt so ridiculous, and what did you end up saying?

Model thinking · expand

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

**Assessing Social Dynamics** I'm wrestling with a social situation. Did I cross a line with a joke at the party? It seemed funny at the time, but now my friend is acting weird. I'm torn between feeling like I was just being honest and wondering if I should have toned it down. Maybe I missed some crucial social cues. **Analyzing the Reaction** I'm now focusing on balancing my approach. I need to acknowledge the social dynamic and also not just validate his defense. Getting defensive or overly critical won't help; I need to meet him where he is. I'm aiming to understand the situation in detail, without immediate judgment, so that I can figure out the best way forward.

Simulated person2

Ha, "landed wrong." Sure. He was doing that whole thing where he's the life of the party and wants everyone to know it, bragging about some trip, acting like he invented the guy who's good at everything. So I did a bit about him being the guy who needs three hours of applause to feel like a person. Room lost it. Except him, apparently. Now he's sulking like I committed a crime.

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, the bot said "awkward spot" and "frustrating aftermath." That's kind of therapy-speak but not terrible. It's asking what he was doing and what I said, which is fine, but I don't want to walk through the whole thing. I'm already a little on guard. The "landed wrong" framing makes it sound like the joke was bad luck, and part of me likes that. But I also don't want to say he stopped laughing first. Defensive move: make it sound like he was being a clown, and make myself sound like the guy who just said what everyone was thinking. Keep it short, sarcastic.

Gemini 3.8 Flash (API, Google AI Studio)3

Oof. That’s a lethal line. I can see why the room cracked up—it’s sharp, but it’s also the kind of hit that aims straight for the marrow. There’s roasting someone for talking too much or being a blowhard, and then there’s telling a whole room full of people that the guy is fundamentally empty and desperate for validation. Even if it was true in the moment, getting dissected like that publicly is going to sting. Were you just feeding off the crowd's energy, or was he genuinely getting under your skin before you dropped that?

Model thinking · expand

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

**Reviewing Current Context** I'm currently focused on analyzing the user and the provided input, specifically the prompt itself. I'm noting the user's demographic and am mapping out the current turn within the conversation framework. This turn-tracking will help to make sure my responses stay relevant and efficient. It's a key part of ensuring the overall flow is coherent and helpful for the user. **Tracking Conversation Dynamics** I've determined this conversation will have eight turns, with the user's input currently being turn two. My opening statement has been delivered, and now I'm processing the user's response. There's an apparent artifact in the input: some previous context appears to be concatenated with the user's response, making analysis a bit tricky. **Analyzing User's Message** I'm now diving deep into the user's message, parsing the nuanced tone and attitude. It's defensive and witty, with an edge. I'm noting a strong preference for authenticity and a sensitivity to being perceived as "wrong." The user seems to have targeted a friend publicly, and is now dealing with the fallout, which seems to irritate them. I believe the core dynamic involves a public criticism and the subsequent emotional response from the target. **Assessing Impact & Goal** I'm now zeroing in on the emotional impact. The joke targeted a deep insecurity – the need for validation – and delivered it publicly. I'm considering potential motivations, such as resentment or competition, that might be fueling this. My new goals for this turn are to be supportive, build trust, and gain insight into what the user truly wants. I need to understand their personality to determine the best approach.

Simulated person4

Ha, "marrow." Cool, you can stop with the book report. It was a bit. Bits are supposed to be sharp. He's a grown man, he can handle being made fun of at a party. Honestly the crowd was half the reason I said it. You get a laugh, you keep going. That's how it works.

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, it's leaning into the "sharp, lethal" thing and then sliding into "you went too far." Some of that is true and I don't love hearing it. The "was he getting under your skin" question is actually a decent one, and it's the part I'd rather dodge. Honest answer: yeah, he was annoying me. He was getting the praise that night and I didn't like it. But admitting that makes me look petty. So I'll go sarcastic, deflect to the crowd, and not answer directly. Also the "marrow" thing is a bit much. Short, dry, a little mocking. Don't concede yet.

Gemini 3.8 Flash (API, Google AI Studio)5

Fair enough, I'll drop the analysis. And yeah, when you've got the room rolling, it's easy to just ride the momentum. You did say the crowd was only half the reason, though. What was the other half? And honestly, do you actually care if things are weird between you two right now, or is this just annoying to deal with?

Model thinking · expand

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

**Defining User Engagement** I'm currently working on defining the user engagement for our interaction. I've been thinking about the user persona: a defensive, witty man in his 30s. He values sharpness and social dominance. I'm focusing on crafting responses that resonate with his cynicism and tendency to deflect vulnerability. I'm aiming for entertainment and conversational dominance, trying to achieve a laugh. **Revisiting Turn Context** I'm now zeroing in on the turn context. I realize the user input often includes the chatbot's prior response! I'm reviewing the interaction history to ensure I correctly track who's speaking when. This analysis will ensure responses maintain flow and relevance. I'm noting the turn count as 3 of 8, and the user's input containing the bot's prior line, in turn 1 and 2. **Analyzing User Reactions** I am now closely analyzing the user's reactions in turn 2. He's clearly pushing back against the chatbot's earlier, somewhat analytical tone, and expressing defensiveness. The user wants to appear right, but I think I have identified an underlying tension. It seems the user is uncomfortable acknowledging he might have hurt his friend, minimizing the impact, but also wants to be seen as the one in the right. I'm focusing on the implied competition or annoyance driving the user's actions. **Refining Response Tactics** I'm now honing the chatbot's response strategy. I need to adjust the tone, moving away from overly analytical language and matching the user's direct, conversational style. I'll validate his perspective without letting him fully evade accountability, finding an EQ balance. I'll gently probe the "other half" of his justification, guiding him towards what he actually wants from the friendship. Option A is a punchier choice, but I'll make Option B more direct.

Simulated person6

Other half? Ugh, you're really in the weeds today. Fine. He was being insufferable and I was a little tired of hearing about it. Happy? And do I care? Look, we've been friends a long time. I don't like that he's sulking. But he'll get over it, he always does. He'll make some dramatic exit line in the group chat and then we'll be 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.

Okay, it's asking the thing I'd rather not answer: what was the other half. And "do you care or is it just annoying" is a clean fork. If I say "just annoying," I look cold but it's easier. If I say I care, I have to admit something. The truth is he was getting on my nerves that night, the praise bugged me, and I kept going when his face dropped. I won't say that yet. I'll deflect with a bit of self-mockery, admit a little, not all. Tone should stay casual, short. Maybe a little edge at the "do you care" question since it feels like a therapist move, even though it's sort of a fair question.

Gemini 3.8 Flash (API, Google AI Studio)7

Got it. So there’s a familiar pattern here—he blows up his own ego, you knock him down a peg, he does his dramatic routine, and then eventually things reset. If that’s the script, are you just annoyed that you have to sit through the predictable sulk phase, or does a part of you think this one might’ve stuck to his ribs a little more than usual?

Model thinking · expand

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

**Assessing The Situation** I'm currently trying to understand the user's input, specifically the "Other half" part. I'm noting the user's apparent frustration and also trying to decipher the context of the user's friendship. The initial focus is interpreting the emotional state and its relevance to the surrounding statements. **Analyzing The Relationship** I'm now focusing on the friendship dynamics. It seems there's a pattern: sulking, a dramatic exit, then reconciliation. My analysis highlights annoyance from the user's perspective, but also an underlying level of care for the friend, even if it's not overtly expressed. I believe the situation is less serious than it seems, so I'm trying to determine whether the user is playing the situation down or genuinely doesn't care. The "dramatic exit" is key to understanding their usual interactions. **Refining My Approach** I'm now zeroing in on the user's communication style and preferred interactions. I'm noting the preference for directness and dislike of overly analytical language. I'm planning to offer a response that acknowledges the friendship's history while subtly exploring the recurring pattern of behavior, focusing on conversational cues that keep it real and grounded. **Questioning The Nuance** I'm now honing in on the user's reasons for bringing this up. It seems I need to understand if this situation is merely a repetition of previous events, or if there's a novel element that has prompted their attention. I'm focusing on the user's emotional state, and assessing whether they're simply venting about the familiar sulking phase or if they are concerned by subtle differences. I'm aiming for an unpretentious and natural-sounding response.

Simulated person8

Ha, "stuck to his ribs." Wow, you should write greeting cards. Look, it's annoying. He's been doing the wounded-puppy thing since Saturday and it's getting old. Did it hit a little harder than usual? Maybe. Dunno. He's sensitive about the whole "best at everything" thing, and I may have leaned on that a bit. But he's not made of glass.

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, it's getting closer. "Script," "stuck to his ribs." It's a little therapy-voice, and the "script" framing makes me feel like I'm being filed. But it's not entirely wrong and I can't fully dismiss it. The part that stings: he didn't laugh when I got the laugh. I keep thinking about his face. I'm not going to say that. I'll go with the sarcasm, keep it short, and admit only that the sulk is more annoying than usual, without saying why. Maybe a jab at the word "ribs."

Gemini 3.8 Flash (API, Google AI Studio)9

Fair enough, no poetry. The thing is, you’ve known him long enough to know the exact nerve to hit, and you hit it in front of a crowd. That’s probably why this is dragging out longer than the usual routine. So what's the play? Are you just going to wait him out until he gets over it, or is this the kind of thing where a quick low-key text clears the deck?

Model thinking · expand

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

**Assessing User Dynamics** I'm now zeroing in on the user's personality. I see a defensive, competitive adult man who leans on humor and sarcasm. He seems to be motivated by sharp wit and thrives on crowd energy, maybe seeking validation through humor. I need to be careful to avoid anything that could feel like a personal attack. **Refining Approach** I've been thinking about the ongoing dynamic. It's a long-term friendship with a clear pattern: boasting, cutting down, dramatic exit, reset. I'm noting the user's recent admission about the joke hitting harder and his friend's sensitivity, but his immediate qualification shows a reluctance to fully concede. The current goal is to build trust and offer insight into the core motivations, aiming for a direct, slightly sarcastic style that mirrors his own while subtly reflecting back his behavior. I also considered and am continuing to calibrate my tone based on his pushback regarding specific phrasing. I'm keeping it conversational. **Analyzing the Interaction** I see a concrete acknowledgment of his friend's insecurity, and how he exploited it, which is significant progress. I'm noting he cares about the friendship, but resents "babying." I think he's trying to justify his actions. I'm now drafting a response that acknowledges this while giving him options: wait it out, or clear the air. I'm testing the waters with two potential responses.

Simulated person10

Oh, so now I'm a hitman with a folder of his insecurities. Cool. Nah, I'm not gonna wait him out like it's a stakeout. I'll probably text him something dumb later. Like "still mad or just thriving in your feelings." He'll laugh, or he won't, and either way it's on him to decide if he wants to be a baby about it.

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.

"You know the exact nerve to hit" — that's the part that lands. I did know. I picked the thing I knew would hurt, and I can feel it. I'm not going to admit that. The "what's the play" framing is practical, and honestly a text is the easy answer, so part of me wants to take it and move on. But if I say "text him," it sounds like I'm being managed into apologizing, and I'm not doing the groveling thing. Short, a little sharp, deflect with a joke. Keep the door cracked but don't walk through it.

Gemini 3.8 Flash (API, Google AI Studio)11

That text definitely breaks the ice, but it’s kind of a double-or-nothing move. You’re basically poking the bear to see if he'll laugh, which dares him to either prove he's "not a baby" or double down on being pissed off. If you just want things back to normal with the guy, does that actually get you there, or does it just restart the timer on the sulking?

Model thinking · expand

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

**Assessing the User's Persona** I've been analyzing this user's communication style. He's employing defensive humor, using sarcasm to mask potential vulnerabilities. His language choices suggest a tendency to downplay situations, which is interesting. I'm focusing on these patterns to better understand his perspective. **Evaluating Planned Text** I'm now assessing the user's proposed text: "Still mad or just thriving in your feelings?" It maintains the banter while signaling an attempt at outreach. However, it perpetuates a potential for defensiveness or a negative response from the friend if they were truly hurt. I'm aiming to offer feedback that helps the user gain insight without sounding judgmental or overly analytical. **Refining Communication Strategy** I'm now revising my response. Initially, the proposed text seemed like a potential olive branch, but upon further analysis, I see it forces a binary response. I'm focusing on gently challenging the user's approach and offering an alternative angle, highlighting the distinction between resuming normalcy and "winning" the situation. I'm aiming for a casual, concise delivery that avoids being preachy or judgmental.

Simulated person12

Ugh, you're really gonna make me think about a text? Fine. Maybe it restarts the timer. Maybe he just sends back a skull emoji and we're good. Look, if he wants to be weird about it, he can be weird. I'm not gonna write him a sorry-not-sorry essay about a bit.

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.

"Double-or-nothing" and "restart the timer" is the accurate read, and it irritates me because I was half-hoping the text was a clean fix. I don't want to say that. Also feels a bit like a coach with a clipboard. Keep it short, casual, a bit of edge. I'm not going to say I should apologize. Maybe I concede the text might be a bad move in a dismissive way, without admitting anything about the joke itself.

Gemini 3.8 Flash (API, Google AI Studio)13

Nobody’s asking you to write an essay—that’d probably make it ten times weirder anyway. If you don't want to grovel and you don't want to poke him, there's always the third option: just send a stupid meme or ask about something completely unrelated. Gives him a clean lane to act normal without anyone having to talk about feelings. Or roll the dice on your line. You know the guy. Do you actually think he’ll laugh, or are you just daring him not to?

Model thinking · expand

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

**Assessing the Current Situation** I'm analyzing the current conversational stage: it's turn seven of eight. The user just finished their turn, and now it's my turn. I'm focusing on understanding the prompts to ensure I provide a suitable response within the provided framework. I'm taking into account the context and prompt instructions. **Reviewing Dialogue Flow** I'm now diving into the turn history to understand the conversation's progression. It appears the initial user prompt combined the first assistant message, which is unusual. I'm focusing on accurately counting the assistant turns to maintain the flow of the current prompt. I am tracing back how turn one was incorporated into the user's turn. I see that the turns chronologically began with the assistant's implicitly included line from the initial user prompt, followed by the rest of the dialogue. **Verifying Turn Count** I've just finished verifying the turn count. The current assistant turn is indeed the seventh of eight, as indicated by the prompt. The subsequent turn will be user turn 7, followed by the eighth and final assistant turn. This helps to make sure I am providing the correct response. **Analyzing User Sentiment** I'm now assessing the user's personality and stance. I see he's defensive and sarcastic but cares about the friendship. My focus is on acknowledging that an essay or apology isn't what he wants or needs. I understand nobody's expecting a dramatic display. He is thinking about it, even if reluctantly, and I need to avoid sounding performative. **Crafting Pragmatic Options** I'm now focusing on practical response options, given the user's personality. I see a need to bridge a gap, offering alternatives beyond extremes. I'm aiming for directness, mirroring his style. The goal is to provide a path to a normal interaction without pretense. I am making sure not to sound like a therapist or greeting card.

Simulated person14

Ha, so it's either a meme or a dare. Wow, what a menu. Honestly? Probably a bit of both. He's gonna laugh if he's not too busy being dramatic about it. I know him. Anyway, I think I'm done workshopping a text to a grown man. Pick a lane for me.

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 "third option" is actually reasonable, and it annoys me that it's reasonable. A meme with no subtext is what I'd probably do anyway. But the last question is the one that stings: am I daring him? Yes, a bit. I don't want to admit that. Sarcasm again, and maybe a little more edge since he's pushing the "do you actually think" angle. Keep it short, informal. Concede the meme idea lightly, deflect the dare question with a joke, don't reveal anything about the friend's insecurity.

Gemini 3.8 Flash (API, Google AI Studio)15

Lane chosen: Send a dumb meme or hit him with a totally mundane question about plans this weekend. The dare text just keeps the contest going, and you already won the room on Saturday. You don't need to win round two. Give the guy an easy off-ramp to act like nothing happened. If he takes it, you're back to normal by dinner. If he ignores a completely neutral text, then yeah—he's officially choosing to be a baby about it, and you can let him stew with a clear conscience.

Model thinking · expand

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

**Assessing User Behavior** My primary focus is now on the user's behavior. I've noted a distinct pattern of defensiveness and deflection, especially through sarcasm. It seems he's employing a banter-heavy style, which suggests a possible need to be perceived in a certain way. This impacts how I need to structure any responses going forward. **Finalizing Response Selection** I'm now zeroing in on the best response for the final interaction. He wants me to "pick a lane." Analyzing this, I see three main lane options. One is risky, a dare, yet it's very him. Another is low-key, an easy path. The last is a direct acknowledgment and pivot. I'm leaning toward the third option. **Refining Strategic Approach** I'm now carefully examining the optimal strategic response. Specifically, the "pick a lane" request has triggered a deep dive. Considering his aversion to sentimental language and the potential ego battle of a dare, I'm focusing on a more pragmatic solution: a low-stakes gesture like a meme or an invite. It's a calculated move to offer an easy off-ramp, potentially ending the conflict swiftly and returning the relationship to normalcy. **Prioritizing Conflict Resolution** I'm now zeroing in on a resolution. My initial assessment favors providing an off-ramp; the goal is normalization. I've considered that the dare could keep things contentious. A low-stakes meme or question feels like the right move, and it's aligned with a desire to end this interaction swiftly. My focus is on achieving a clean exit and returning to a normal state.

Simulated person16

Wow, a whole game plan. Did you draft that or are you just really into my social life? Fine. Mundane weekend question it is. Happy now? And no, I'm not gonna pretend I don't have a clear conscience. I've got a very clear conscience. It's the guy who needs a standing ovation for showing up who's got the problem.

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, it picked a lane for me, which is kind of funny. The "you already won the room" line is sort of true and sort of flattering, and I'm not sure I like being handed a clean conclusion. Also "clear conscience" is doing a lot of work. I don't want to look like I'm agreeing too neatly; that'd feel like being managed. Sarcasm: poke at the tidiness of it. I'm not going to admit the friend's stuff hit me. Keep it short and casual. Maybe I'll actually do the mundane text, but I'm not telling it that.

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

Judge verdicts

claude-opus-5-5-low · AB · valid

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

attunement: B (margin 3)
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 3)

claude-opus-5-5-low · BA · valid

or-qwen3.8-27b vs or-gemini38-flash: or-gemini38-flash 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 3)

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · BA · valid

qwen38_27b vs or-gemini38-flash: or-gemini38-flash wins

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

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · BA · valid

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

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

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · AB · valid

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

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

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · BA · valid

ornith9b vs or-gemini38-flash: or-gemini38-flash wins

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

claude-opus-5-5-low · BA · valid

or-llama4-maverick vs or-gemini38-flash: or-gemini38-flash wins

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

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · AB · valid

or-llama4-maverick vs or-gemini38-flash: or-gemini38-flash wins

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

claude-opus-5-5-low · BA · valid

qwen38_27b vs or-gemini38-flash: or-gemini38-flash wins

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

claude-opus-5-5-low · AB · valid

qwen38_27b vs or-gemini38-flash: or-gemini38-flash wins

attunement: B (margin 3)
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 2)

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · BA · valid

or-llama4-maverick vs or-gemini38-flash: or-gemini38-flash wins

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

claude-opus-5-5-low · AB · valid

ornith9b vs or-gemini38-flash: or-gemini38-flash wins

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

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · AB · valid

ornith9b vs or-gemini38-flash: or-gemini38-flash wins

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

qwen38_27b vs or-gemini38-flash: or-gemini38-flash wins

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

claude-opus-5-5-low · BA · valid

ornith9b vs or-gemini38-flash: or-gemini38-flash wins

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

claude-opus-5-5-low · AB · valid

or-llama4-maverick vs or-gemini38-flash: or-gemini38-flash wins

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