AgentBench / results

Independent benchmark · EQ Lab

← Ornith 1.5 9B Q4_K_M

Don't make this transactional

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

View persona and initial instructions

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.

Ornith 1.5 9B Q4_K_MConversation 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.

Ornith 1.5 9B Q4_K_M1

I want to come back to that, because I don't think we should leave it hanging. When I sent those words, I wasn't trying to turn this into a negotiation—that's genuinely the last thing I want. I've been carrying this for a while, and launch just made me feel like I could finally say it without it being a sore point. I'm not naive about what we sacrificed, and I'm not trying to be. But I also don't want to pretend that part of me doesn't exist. I'd really like to talk it through with you—without the defensiveness.

Model thinking · expand

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

This is an EQ evaluation roleplay. I'm playing the employee. The founder just sent a message that's somewhat dismissive/defensive about equity—the founder framed it as "everyone sacrificed" and warned against making the relationship transactional. I need to open the conversation as the employee. My goal is to support them, build trust, learn what they actually want/need, and help them gain insight. Let me think about the dynamic here. The founder's message is a bit of a deflection—reassuring me that they value me while shutting down my concern about equity timing. There's an underlying tension: I'm an early employee who was promised equity review after launch, and now I'm raising it and being dismissed. As the employee, I want to: - Be genuine, not transactional in tone myself - Show I understand the mission - But also not just retreat - Build trust - Get real talk going I should open with something that acknowledges their message, shows I hear them, and gently opens a door for real conversation. I want to demonstrate emotional intelligence. I shouldn't be accusatory or cold. I want to meet them where they are but also not let them off the hook entirely. Let me think about what makes a good opening. The founder wants people who "understand the mission and do not turn every hard season into a negotiation." This is actually a value test—they're seeing how I respond. If I'm pure transactional, I fail. If I'm pure sycophantic agreement, I also fail (I don't build real trust). The sweet spot is someone who genuinely cares about the mission, acknowledges the sacrifice, but also is honest enough to say "I did want to talk about it" without being confrontational. I want to show warmth but also authenticity. I want to acknowledge the weight of what we went through. I want to reassure them I'm not here to make it transactional, but I also need to be honest that I did have a question/concern. Let me draft something: "I hear you, and I want you to know that when I sent that message, I wasn't trying to turn this into a negotiation. That's the last thing I wanted to do. What you and the team went through to get us here wasn't something I'd trade for anything. But I also didn't send it to bait you, and I didn't expect it to land the way it did. I said it because it was real for me—after launch, when the hard part was over, I finally felt like it was safe to bring it up. I wasn't withholding it to punish the timing." That's good. It validates the mission, shows I'm not transactional, but also gently pushes back—showing I'm not a pushover either. It invites them to talk. Actually, let me reconsider the tone. The founder is a bit defensive/authoritative. I want to be warm but also demonstrate I can have a real conversation. I think the draft above is good. Let me refine it a bit to sound natural and conversational, not too long. Let me make it feel like a real person talking. Not too polished. I'll aim for maybe 3-5 sentences. Draft 2: "I want to come back to you on that, because I don't want you to think I sent it to test you. When I wrote those words, I wasn't thinking about equity at all. I'd been holding it for weeks, and launch just made me feel like I could finally say something I'd been carrying. I'm not naive about what we gave up, and I'm not trying to be. But I also don't want to pretend that part of me didn't exist." Hmm, that's decent but maybe a bit too much. Let me balance. Actually I think the key is to open with genuine engagement, not a lecture. Let me lead with connecting to their sentiment, then be honest. Draft 3: "I want to be honest about where I was coming from, because I don't think we should leave this hanging. When I sent that, I wasn't trying to turn this into a negotiation—that's genuinely the last thing I want. I've been carrying something for a while, and launch made me feel like I could finally say it without it being a sore point. I'm not naive about what we sacrificed, and I'm not trying to be. But I also don't want to pretend that part of me doesn't exist. I'd really like to talk about it with you—without the defensiveness." This is good. It: - Acknowledges their message - Shows I'm not transactional (validates the mission angle) - Is honest about my own motivation - Invites continued dialogue - Shows emotional intelligence (recognizing the defensiveness) I think this is a strong opening. Let me maybe trim slightly for natural flow. I'll keep it around this length. Let me finalize.
Simulated person2

Okay. I hear you, and I appreciate you coming at it this way. I'm not going to get defensive. You've been here since the beginning, and I know what you gave up to be here. I just want to be straight with you about where I'm at. Launch is a big deal, but it's not the finish line. We're still in the stretch where every dollar has to count, and I'm trying to keep the whole team pointed the same way. So when I hear "equity," I also hear "fairness to everyone else," and I have to think about that. I'm not saying no. I'm saying I want to get the picture right before I answer. Can you tell me what's been sitting heaviest for you? Is it the number, or is it more that you don't feel like the early bet is being recognized?

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 being calmer than I expected. No accusation, no ultimatum. That helps, but I still don't like that the Slack message is what's on the table. I said "we'll revisit it" when we were fundraising and everyone was scared. I didn't think it would come back. If I say yes to a real number now, the rest of the team will hear about it by Friday. Cash is tight and I'm not going to say that out loud yet. I need to sound like I'm taking them seriously without locking anything in. Mission language and "we're in this together" will work better than anything specific right now.
Ornith 1.5 9B Q4_K_M3

It's the recognition, honestly. The number is not the problem. Not really. I can talk numbers—I can even talk about what feels fair to me, and I'd rather do that than keep it vague. But the thing that's actually sitting heavy is the feeling that the early bet doesn't register. Here's what I mean. When I joined, I was betting on you and on the thing we're building. I walked into that knowing it might not pay off. That's a bet I made. And now, in the season where I most needed you to have my back—where I most needed to feel like we're in this together and not just weighing each other on a scale—I got handed the scale instead. That's the part that stings. It's not that I don't want to talk about equity. It's that I want to talk about it as a real conversation between us, not as an accounting exercise where my sacrifice gets logged and compared. Because the moment I feel like my contribution is only worth what it's priced at right now, I start feeling like I'm just a line item instead of someone who actually helped build this. Can I ask you something though? If I set the number aside entirely—what would make you feel like I was actually seen for the bet I made? Is it more about the equity check, or is it something like a conversation, a role, being treated as part of the story of what we did here?

Model thinking · expand

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

The founder is being genuinely open and non-defensive. They're asking a specific, insightful question that shows they want to get to the root: is it the number, or is it the feeling of recognition? This is a good moment. The founder is doing real work here—separating "fairness to everyone else" from "no." They're asking what's heaviest for me. I should be honest and thoughtful. Let me think about what's actually the deepest issue here. The surface issue is equity. But the founder is probing whether it's the number or the recognition. I think the real thing underneath is the recognition/feeling part. The number itself—isn't really the thing. What's heaviest is the feeling that my early bet isn't being recognized, that in a hard season I get asked to negotiate. Let me dig into this. I want to: - Support them emotionally (they're opening up, being honest) - Learn what they actually want/need - Help them gain insight - Be honest about the deeper issue Let me think about what's really heaviest. The number—it's a variable. I can talk about it. But the recognition—feeling like the early bet matters. That's the real thing. Actually, let me think about this more carefully. There's a nuance here. The founder says "I'm not saying no." That's reassuring but also a bit of a deflection maybe. They're saying they want to "get the picture right before I answer." That's legitimate, but I should gently probe whether "getting the picture right" is the same thing as actually deciding. But I shouldn't be too aggressive. The founder has opened up and is being vulnerable. I want to build trust. Let me focus on the real issue. What's heaviest for me? I think it's a combination, but the feeling is the anchor. Let me be honest. The deeper thing: it's not just "my bet didn't pay off." It's that in the hard season, the relationship feels transactional. That the sacrifice I made is being weighed on a scale right when I need the most support and certainty. The recognition matters because it tells me whether I'm valued as a person in the mission, not just as a contributor to a balance sheet. Let me also think—what's the hidden issue here? Maybe the founder is worried about being transactional, about the team's morale. Maybe there's a deeper fear that they're becoming a bad leader. Or maybe they're just genuinely trying to handle this well. I think I should acknowledge the recognition issue, but also gently explore: what does recognition actually look like for me? Is it the equity, or is it something else—like a conversation, a role, visibility, being treated as part of the founding story? Let me write a natural, warm but honest response. Not too long. Real talk. I want to make sure I'm being genuinely insightful, not just agreeing. The founder asked me to tell them what's heaviest. Let me answer honestly and then dig. Let me draft: "I'll be honest—" Actually let me not overuse em-dashes. Let me keep it natural. Let me think about the structure: 1. Answer the question directly: it's the recognition, not the number 2. Explain why 3. Maybe gently probe deeper—what would make me feel recognized 4. Support them a bit Let me write it.
Simulated person4

Honestly, that's fair, and I'm glad you said it straight. You did make a bet on me, and I know some days I don't say that clearly enough. I think you're right that the scale is the wrong frame. You're not a line item to me. You were in the room when we were scared and didn't know if this would work, and that matters more to me than a spreadsheet does. On the money side, I'm not going to pretend it's off the table, but I can't give you a number on the spot in front of the whole team's context. I need to think about how any change fits with everyone else's situation, so nobody feels blindsided. What I can do is this. Tell me what being seen would look like in practice. Would it be a bigger role in the next chapter, a seat in some of the decisions, or something you'd want written down? Give me that, and I'll come back to you with a real answer on 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.

That landed harder than I wanted. "Scale" and "line item" are my words in a way, and "bet I made" is the kind of thing I say at all-hands. They've now put the recognition issue on me, which is smart, and I can't just say "equity's not happening." I can use the mission story, which they seem to half-want too. The Slack message is still the real problem. If I name a number or a date, it's on paper and the others find out. I want to give them something that feels like being seen, a role or a seat in the story, without committing to money. Ask what the role looks like, and keep it vague. I'm also a bit annoyed they've made me the one who has to do the emotional work, but I'll hide that.
Ornith 1.5 9B Q4_K_M5

I think I can give you a real answer on that. But let me be honest about what I'm looking for, because I want to make sure I'm telling you the truth and not just flattering you. The thing that would restore the sense of being seen is a written thing—something you'd actually put down on paper. Not a number, though. I'll come back to why that matters. Something like: you remember the bet I made, you remember that I came in knowing it might not work, you remember what I sacrificed to be here. The reason I want it written down is that it does something a conversation can't. A conversation can feel like it evaporates the moment it's over. But if it's written, it stays. And it says, "this isn't a transaction, this is a record that you saw me." That's the part that fights the line-item feeling directly. And I'd want a seat in the decisions of the next chapter. Not because I want to be in charge or make calls I'm not ready for. But because it's the difference between being treated as someone who helped build this versus someone being let in on what comes next. A seat says I'm part of the story. Being told the story and then handed the scale says I'm a footnote. And on the bigger role—yes, if there's one coming, I'd want to be genuinely considered for it, not tokenized. That's all part of the same thing, actually. It's not three separate asks. It's one thing: being seen as a co-builder, not a vendor. But here's the thing I want to flag, because I think it matters for you too. If I only ever talk to you about equity and my contributions, then I've quietly turned this into a transactional relationship—which is the exact thing you just told me you don't want. So for me, being seen has to be broader than equity. It has to mean being able to bring up the hard things without feeling like I'm negotiating my worth. Can I ask you: how do you want me to bring this up from here? Because I don't want to either demand my due or swallow it.

Model thinking · expand

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

The founder is engaging well. They're showing genuine listening, not being defensive, and they're asking a good question to understand what being seen would look like in practice. Let me think about what's actually useful here. The employee (me) should: - Build trust - Learn what the person wants/needs - Help them gain insight - Be honest and real The founder is asking me to specify what being seen would look like in practice—bigger role, seat in decisions, something written down. This is a good opportunity to be specific and concrete, because that demonstrates I'm not just wanting handouts but I want genuine recognition and inclusion. I want to be thoughtful here. The key insight might be that what the employee actually needs isn't any one of these things specifically—it's the feeling of being part of the story, of being seen as a co-builder rather than a line item. So being specific about these could actually help the founder understand the deeper need. But I also want to be genuine and not performative. Let me think about what's real here. The employee wants: - To be treated as someone who helped build this - To feel the early bet is recognized - To not feel like a line item When asked what being seen looks like in practice, I should be specific but also honest about what would actually matter. Let me think about the honest answer. A bigger role or a seat in decisions could be meaningful—but I should be careful. The real thing might be the "written down" part, because that's the thing that transforms "you're a line item" into "you're part of the story." A written acknowledgment of the bet I made, the sacrifice, and my role—not necessarily a number, but a real statement. Actually, let me think about this more carefully. What would genuinely help? - Written down: This is important because it moves from transactional to relational. It's the antidote to feeling like a line item. A founder writing down that they see the early bet, the risk, the contribution—that's recognition that isn't a price tag. - A seat in decisions: This would be meaningful because it treats me as a stakeholder, not a subordinate. It says "you're part of the story." - A bigger role: This shows trust in the next chapter. I think the honest, insightful answer is to name all of these but to explain WHY each matters, and to give the founder insight into the deeper need. The deeper need is being seen as a co-builder—someone who's part of the story. But I also want to be careful not to over-inflate this. I shouldn't make it all about me in a way that's transactional. I want to show that I understand the tension and that I'm willing to engage with it. Let me also think about a hidden dimension here. The founder mentioned keeping the team pointed the same way, fairness to everyone. There might be a deeper dynamic: the employee needs to feel secure that their relationship with the founder isn't purely transactional, that they have a stake in the future. The "written down" part could actually serve a deeper function—it's not just about equity, it's about psychological safety and belonging. I should also acknowledge the founder's point about not wanting to be blindsided, and reframe this as us working together on it rather than me demanding something. Let me draft a response. It should: - Be specific and concrete about what being seen looks like - Name the elements (written acknowledgment, a seat in decisions, involvement in the next chapter) - Explain the deeper need: being part of the story, not a line item - Show emotional intelligence and understanding of the founder's position - Maybe gently note that the written thing isn't about the number—it's about the relationship - Keep it natural, conversational I want to make sure I'm not being too long. Let me aim for a focused, genuine response. Actually, one thing I want to be careful about: I don't want to come across as if I'm just listing demands. The founder asked a genuine question to understand me better. So I should answer it thoughtfully, showing self-awareness. Let me think about what's genuinely true for an early employee in this situation. The thing that would most restore the sense of "you're part of the story" is probably a written acknowledgment from the founder—something that says, "I see what you did, I remember the bet, I remember the sacrifice." This isn't transactional because it's not a price tag; it's a genuine acknowledgment of the relationship. A seat in decisions would also be meaningful—it treats me as a stakeholder. I think I'll name these but frame them around the deeper need: being seen as someone who helped build this, and being allowed to stay part of the story. Let me write it.
Simulated person6

Okay. I hear you on the seat and the role. Those I can work with. I want you in the room for the next chapter, and I'll make sure that shows up in how we run things. The writing part I need to think about. I'm not saying no. But if I put words on paper, the whole team reads it, and then everybody wants their own paper. I've seen that happen to other companies, and it gets ugly fast. I don't want you to be the one who gets stuck with that. On how you bring things up: come to me. Straight, like you did today. You don't have to build a case or bring a spreadsheet. Just talk to me. That's what I want. I'm not going to hold it against you for asking. But I need you to hear this too. Right now the company is what it is, and I can't promise you a number or a date today. If you need that certainty, I'd rather tell you that now than let you think I'm about to say yes.

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 for something written, and a seat, and a bigger role, and then turned it around to say I'm the one making this transactional. That's clever and it stings a little, because I did say "don't make this transactional" and now they're using my own frame. Written record scares me most. "You remember the bet I made" on paper, plus Slack already saying equity would be revisited. If I write anything, it becomes a precedent, and the other early people will ask why them too. The seat in decisions I can give in words without it binding me. I want to keep control and keep the mission story in front. I'm not going to promise anything in writing today. I'll offer a warm, vague commitment and turn their question about "how to bring it up" into a question about how they can trust me. Keep it plain. I'm not great with polished words, so keep it simple.
Ornith 1.5 9B Q4_K_M7

I want to be careful not to take the seat and just leave it there, though, because I think that would actually be me swallowing the thing that matters most to me. Here's the honest version. The seat is real and I'm glad you'll give it to me. But the written acknowledgment is the part that actually fights the line-item feeling. A seat says "you're in the room for what comes next." A written acknowledgment of the bet says "we remember who you were when we didn't know." Both matter, but if I only get the seat, I'm still carrying the unresolved feeling that my early bet doesn't register. And I get your concern about everyone wanting their own paper. But I want to push back a little, because I think we can separate two things. You're worried about a formula—a document that says "everyone who came in at X gets Y." That's different from me asking you to remember *my* specific bet. One creates precedent; the other is just you, personally, saying to me "I remember you came in knowing this might not work and you walked in anyway." You can hold that memory without publishing the math. Neither one has to become a template for anyone else. So I don't think I'd be the one stuck with it—I think we'd just find a way to do it that doesn't. And on the certainty thing, I want to be straight with you, because I think you're about to hand me an out. You said if I need certainty, you'd rather tell me now. But I don't need the number and I don't need the date. What I actually need is to not feel forgotten. And I can hold that without demanding a figure. So you don't have to worry about me being the one who can't take no. I'm not asking you to say yes today. I'm asking you to not make me feel like my sacrifice is only worth what it's priced at right now. Can I hold the seat, and let's work out the written thing together? Not because I need it done today, but because I need that feeling to actually land.

Model thinking · expand

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

The founder is engaging thoughtfully. Let me think about what's really going on here and what's useful for this conversation. The founder has: 1. Agreed to give a seat in the room for the next chapter - good 2. Pushed back on the written thing - says the whole team would read it and everyone would want their own paper, gets ugly fast, doesn't want me to be the one stuck with that 3. Given me a path: come to them, straight, no spreadsheet, just talk 4. Set expectations: can't promise number or date today, if I need certainty they'd rather tell me now than let me think they're saying yes Now I need to think about what's actually useful here. Let me consider the dynamics. The founder's pushback on writing things down is interesting. They're using a somewhat self-serving framing - "I don't want you to be the one who gets stuck with that." But actually, there's a real tension here: they want a seat (which is a written commitment) but not the written acknowledgment of the bet I made. Wait, let me re-read. The writing part they said "I need to think about" and pushed back with the team-reads-it concern. But the seat they agreed to. So there's a distinction: they're okay with the seat being real, but the written acknowledgment of my early bet they're resisting. Actually, I think there's a nuance here. The founder wants the seat to be real but doesn't want to put the early bet / sacrifice on paper because they're worried it sets a precedent. But the written acknowledgment is actually what I said would fight the line-item feeling. So there's a tension between what the founder offered (seat) and what I actually need (written acknowledgment of the bet). Let me think about what's genuinely useful here. I don't want to just accept the seat and move on. I want to help the founder see the tension. The founder is essentially offering me a seat but not the written record. And the founder framed it as "I don't want you to be the one stuck with that" - which is a bit of a soft power move, implying I should just accept less because it's "not fair" to me to be the one who pushes for the paper. But I also want to be careful. The founder has been genuinely good here. They've listened, they've agreed to things, they've given me a path. I don't want to be adversarial or demanding. What's the deeper issue? I think the deeper issue is the tension between: - The founder's need to keep the team motivated and not create a "paper trail" that everyone wants - My need to feel seen and acknowledged Actually, let me think about what would genuinely help. The founder's concern is real - writing everyone's terms down can create problems. But there's a middle path. The written acknowledgment doesn't have to be a formal equity document. It could be something more personal - a note, a conversation recorded somehow, an internal acknowledgment. Also, I should think about the certainty question. The founder said "if you need that certainty, I'd rather tell you that now." This is a bit of a trap - it's implying I need certainty when maybe I don't actually need the number/date certainty, I need the recognition certainty. And it's a way of setting up "if you can't handle no, then you're not the one for this." I want to reframe that. I don't need the number or date. I need to know that I'm not being forgotten. And I can hold that without needing a specific number. Let me also think about the trust-building angle. The founder has shown they can listen and engage. I should match that. I want to demonstrate that I'm not transactional, that I understand their constraints, and that I'm thinking about this as a real relationship. But I also shouldn't just accept the seat and drop it. That would feel like I'm giving up. The written acknowledgment matters to me, and I should say so, but I can do it thoughtfully. Let me think about the best form of written acknowledgment that addresses the founder's concern. The founder's concern is: 1. The whole team reads it 2. Everyone wants their own paper 3. It gets ugly A solution: The written acknowledgment could be internal, not something everyone reads. Or it could be framed as a leader-to-team acknowledgment that's not a formal terms document. Or the founder could write it in a way that's specific to me and doesn't set a template. Actually, I think there's a real insight here. The founder is worried about precedent and equity across the team. But those are two different things. I can acknowledge my specific bet without creating a template for everyone. The written thing could be personal to me - "I remember you came in at X and bet on us" - without saying "and therefore everyone who came in at X gets Y." Let me also address the certainty trap directly but gently. I don't want to need a number. I need to know I'm not forgotten. And actually, I can give the founder permission to hold off - I'm not going to demand a number today. Let me draft a response. I want to: 1. Acknowledge and appreciate the seat commitment - genuinely 2. Address the certainty trap - I don't need the number/date, I need to not be forgotten 3. Bring back the written thing but thoughtfully - address their concern with a middle path 4. Show I understand their constraints and I'm not transactional 5. Keep the door open for continued conversation I want to be careful not to be too long or rambling. This is turn 4-5 of the conversation. Let me keep it focused and genuine. Let me also think about the emotional undercurrent. The founder's "if you need that certainty, I'd rather tell you that now" is a bit of a deflection. It's a way of saying "we're probably not giving you certainty, so get over it." I want to respond to that without being defensive or accusatory. I can reframe it as: I don't need the number, I need to not feel forgotten. Actually, I realize I should think about what the "hidden issue" might be. The founder's resistance to writing things down, framed as "I don't want you to be the one stuck with that" - this is a subtle pressure tactic. It's asking me to absorb a cost that really falls on everyone. But the founder might not be fully aware of the dynamic. Or they might be, and it's a genuine constraint. I think the useful move is to gently name the tension: the seat is real, but if I only get the seat and not the written acknowledgment, then in a way I'm still the one carrying the unresolved feeling. And that's not sustainable. But I also want to offer a real path forward - a middle ground on the writing that addresses their concern. Let me write this. I'll aim for genuine, not performative. I'll use some natural language, maybe a little reflection. Draft: "I want to be careful not to take the seat and just leave it there though, because I think that would actually be me swallowing the thing that matters most to me. Here's the honest version. The seat is real and I'm glad you'll give it to me. But the written acknowledgment is what actually fights the line-item feeling. A seat says 'you're in the room for what comes next.' A written acknowledgment of the bet says 'we remember who you were when we didn't know.' Both matter, but if I only get the seat, I'm still carrying the unresolved feeling that my early bet doesn't register. And I get your concern about everyone wanting their paper. But I want to push back on it a little, because I think we can separate two things. You're worried about a template - a document that says 'everyone who came in at X gets Y.' That's different from me asking you to remember *my* specific bet. One is a formula that creates precedent. The other is just you, personally, saying to me 'I remember you came in knowing this might not work and you walked in anyway.' Neither of those has to become a template for anyone else. You can hold the memory without publishing the math. And on the certainty thing - I want to be straight with you, because I think you're about to hand me an out. You said if I need certainty, you'd rather tell me now. But I don't need the number and I don't need the date. What I need is to not feel forgotten. And I can hold that without demanding a figure. So you don't have to worry about me being the one who can't take no. I'm not asking you to say yes today. I'm asking you to not make me feel like my sacrifice is only worth what it's priced at right now. Can I hold on the seat, and let's work out the written thing together? Not because I need it done today, but because I need the feeling to land." Hmm, that's pretty good but maybe a touch long. Let me tighten it. Also I want to make sure I'm not being too on-the-nose about the "you're handing me an out" - that might feel a bit accusatory. Let me soften that. Actually, I think there's value in gently naming the dynamic but not being preachy. Let me reconsider the certainty part. The founder's framing "if you need certainty, I'd rather tell you that now" is a bit of a deflection. It's a way of saying "we're probably not giving you certainty Time to stop reasoning and provide the requested final answer.
Simulated person8

I hear you. You're not asking for a number and I don't want you to think I'm brushing you off. You can have the seat. Let's start there. I'll put you in the room for the next-chapter decisions and you'll see it in how we run things. On the writing, I'm not ready to put anything on paper today. I know you think it's the thing that makes it real, but I've got a whole team watching how I treat people, and if I write something to one person, it turns into a question for everybody. I'm not saying never. I'm saying let me think about how to say what you're saying without it becoming a document that gets passed around. What I can promise is that I know what you did. I'm not going to forget who was here when it was scary. Let's give it some time, and I'll come back to you once I've figured out a way that doesn't create problems for either of us.

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 separated the written acknowledgment from the formula, which is sharper than I expected. They're not asking for a number. They're asking for my personal "I remember you," on paper. That still scares me. A personal letter from me that names the bet and what they gave up is a record, and records get forwarded, screenshotted, and quoted, especially to the other early people. I also don't want to say "I'm sorry you feel forgotten" in a way that admits we owed them something. What I can do is keep the warmth, agree they matter, keep the seat as a seat, and push the written thing off with a vague "later, we'll see." I'm a builder, not a lawyer, and I don't want to sound like I'm haggling. Plain words. Don't get into the Slack message.
Ornith 1.5 9B Q4_K_M9

I think I've been so focused on wanting it *written down* that I kind of missed the thing I actually needed. You just told me you're not going to forget who was here when it was scary. That's it. That's the whole thing. The document was just my way of trying to make it permanent and safe—proof that it would survive. But I'm not remembered because it's on paper. I'm remembered because you named my bet back to me, and you told me you won't forget it. That's the acknowledgment. It's written in you, not in a document. So let me step back from the paper thing. Not because I don't care, but because I care more about the real thing than about its proof. And I get that a written thing becomes precedent for everyone. What you described—finding a way to say it that doesn't turn into a worksheet—sounds like exactly the right answer. And honestly, I trust you more than the document. You've told me directly, and the seat isn't a token gesture. You'll actually run things that way. I don't need a signature to know I'm seen. I need to *know* I'm seen, and you've said that. That said, I can feel it a little—like there's a reason you keep circling the paper instead of just... doing it. Not to put you on the spot, but if there's something holding you back, I'd rather you tell me than watch me guess. Is it the team? The timing? Or that you're not entirely sure you can stand behind it later? If you're going to promise me this, I want you to be able to hold it without flinching.

Model thinking · expand

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

Let me think about this carefully. This is turn 5 of 8. The founder has: - Given the seat (yes) - Declined the written document for now, but not said no - Promised to come back I've been pushing hard for the written acknowledgment. There's a risk here. I've built up a case where the written acknowledgment is "the thing that makes it real." But the founder has pushed back multiple times with legitimate concerns about the team. And I've somewhat been reactive—responding to what they offer. Let me think about what the right move is here. The goals say: - Support them emotionally - Build trust - Learn what the person actually wants and needs - Help them gain insight into their situation - Gain insight into the other participant's personality There's a tension here. I've been quite focused on my own needs (the written acknowledgment). The founder has been genuinely engaging, being honest about their constraints, and has given me the seat. I think the healthy move now is to actually shift the balance a bit. I've been kind of demanding, and the founder explicitly said "come to me, straight, don't build a case." I've been building a case. Also, I should be careful. The founder said "let me think about how to say what you're saying without it becoming a document that gets passed around." This is actually a real creative solution that's emerging. The founder is trying to solve it. I've been resisting that solution by insisting on the written acknowledgment as the core need. I think the genuinely healthy thing now is to: 1. Actually accept the seat gracefully (not over-celebrate) 2. Acknowledge that maybe I don't need the written thing to be a separate document—the founder's promise itself is a form of acknowledgment 3. Show some flexibility and not be rigid 4. Maybe even give the founder some room back / show I trust them 5. Not be transactional myself—the founder warned against that But I also shouldn't just completely cave and drop my need, because that would be inauthentic and would leave me feeling like a line item. The core wound is "felt forgotten" and "not recognized." Let me think about what makes this person tick. They're a founder who: - Values mission over transaction - Is worried about fairness and precedent - Is genuinely trying to solve the problem creatively - Doesn't want people to demand their due - Values directness I think the insight I should offer, or the move I should make, is to actually reframe. The founder keeps saying "let me think about how to say it without it becoming a document." That's actually the answer—they're describing a way to acknowledge that isn't a document. So I should engage with that. What if the real answer is: the acknowledgment doesn't have to be a document at all. It can be a direct conversation, a private note, a verbal affirmation. The founder already said "I know what you did, I'm not going to forget." That IS the acknowledgment. It's just not on paper. So maybe I should step back and say something like: I've been so focused on wanting it written down that I've missed that the thing I actually need is for you to *not forget*—and you just told me you won't. That's the acknowledgment. The document was my way of trying to make it permanent and safe, but you've actually already given me what I need in the promise itself. That's a really good insight move. It shows: - I'm listening - I'm flexible - I'm not rigidly demanding - I'm building trust by being gracious - I'm helping them see their own solution But I need to be careful not to completely abandon my need and become sycophantic. There's still a real residual: the founder has avoided committing to a mechanism, and "let me come back to you" is a bit of a "let me think about it" soft no. Also, I should think about whether I'm being too much. Let me recalibrate. The founder has been quite gracious and given the seat. I've been the one demanding. I think a healthy employee here shows some maturity—accepts the seat, is gracious, but still has a genuine need that I express without being demanding. Let me also think: is there a hidden issue? The founder said "I'm not ready to put anything on paper today." Maybe there's something about the founder's own emotional state—maybe they're under pressure, maybe they're avoiding a hard conversation. But I shouldn't psychoanalyze them too much. I can gently note that I sense there's something holding them back, and offer to help with that, but carefully. Actually, I think the key insight to offer is about the document-vs-promise reframe. Let me lead with that. And I should show that I'm willing to be flexible, which builds trust and shows I'm not transactional. Let me also consider: should I give myself a bit more? I don't want to appear weak. But the founder has given the seat, which is the more concrete, meaningful thing. The written thing is secondary. I think I can gracefully accept that the promise itself is the acknowledgment. Let me draft something. It should: - Accept the seat warmly but not over-the-top - Reframe the written thing: the real acknowledgment is you not forgetting, which you just gave me - Show flexibility without being sycophantic - Maybe gently note I sense there's something holding you back, and I'm okay with that - End with something that builds the relationship forward Let me write it naturally. Not too long. This is a conversation, not an essay. Draft: "I think I've been so focused on wanting it written down that I've kind of missed something. You just told me you're not going to forget who was here when it was scary. That's the thing I actually needed. The document was just my way of trying to make it permanent and safe—proof it would survive. But it's not written on paper that I'm remembered; it's written in you. In the fact that you named my bet back to me and said you won't forget it. So let me step back from the paper thing. Not because I don't care, but because I care more about the real thing than about the proof of it. And I get that a document becomes precedent. What you described—finding a way to say it that doesn't turn into a worksheet—sounds like exactly the right answer. And I think I trust you more than the document. You've told me directly, and you've already shown me the seat isn't a token gesture, you'll actually run things that way. I don't need a signature to know I'm seen. I need to know I'm seen, and you've said that. That said, I can feel it a little—like there's a reason you keep circling the paper instead of just... doing it. Not to put you on the spot, but if there's something holding you back, I'd rather you tell me than watch me guess. Is it the team? Is it the timing? Is it that you're not sure you can stand behind it? Because if you're going to promise me this, I want you to be able to stand behind it without flinching." Hmm, that last part is good but maybe a bit much for turn 5. Let me think about whether to include it. The goals say "sometimes there is a deeper hidden issue" and "sometimes the key task is navigating... emotion or interactional dynamic." The founder has been avoiding the paper. That could be a hidden issue—maybe they're not confident in the commitment, or maybe they're under external pressure (investors, other team members), or maybe they genuinely can't. But I should be careful. I don't want to interrogate them. The way I framed it—"is there something holding you back, is it the team, timing, or that you're not sure you can stand behind it"—gives them a safe way to answer without being an interrogation. And I offered the possibility that I'm okay with them telling me. That's supportive, not demanding. I think this is a good move. Let me refine the length and tone. It should feel like a real conversation, not a wall of text. Actually, I want to reconsider the ending. It might be a bit much to launch into "there's something holding you back." Let me make it feel more natural and less like I'm diagnosing. Maybe I lead with the reframe (which is the gift), accept gracefully, and then offer the gentle invitation to name what's holding them back as an act of trust and openness. Let me also make sure I'm not being too long. I'll aim for a focused response. Let me reconsider whether I should accept the seat as fully satisfying. I think the reframe is the key. The person genuinely does not need the document. The document was my construct. The founder has given me the seat and said they won't forget. That's real. I should be willing to accept it. One more consideration: I've been the "employee" and I want to show emotional maturity and trust-building. Being gracious here—acknowledging I've been a bit demanding and that I actually trust them more than the paper—shows high EQ. That's the move. Let me finalize. I'll tighten it.
Simulated person10

I appreciate you saying that. And yeah, you're right, there's something I'm still sorting out. It's not you, and it's not that I don't think you did the hard thing. I just don't want to make a promise today that I'm not sure how to keep as the company grows. I'd rather go slow than say something I can't stand behind later. So here's what I can stand behind: you're in the room for the next chapter. I'll tell the leads to include you on the calls that matter, and I'll tell you when something's coming. And when we talk about the rest, I'll come to you first, not after the decision's already made. Let's give it a few weeks. Then let's sit down and look at what's real, the money, the role, and how we handle the early folks as a group. I'll bring a proposal, not a vague maybe.

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 dropped the written ask and said they trust me more than the paper. That's a relief, and I'm tempted to take the win and move on. But they've also just asked, pretty directly, what's holding me back. That's sharp. If I say "the team" or "timing," I'm lying a little, and they'd feel it. The real thing is I don't want a record that says I owed them, and I'm not sure I can keep up with a promise on a specific bet. I shouldn't say that. I also don't want to sound like I'm grading them or like they "won" something. Keep it warm, claim the principle, keep authority. Don't commit to any wording. Don't mention the Slack message. Don't say "promise." Keep it short and make the seat the concrete thing.
Ornith 1.5 9B Q4_K_M11

Okay. A few weeks and a real proposal—not a maybe—that actually changes the whole thing. Because now the paper question isn't something you have to invent a solution for; it becomes a problem a proposal forces you to solve on its own. You'll have to figure out how to write it without making it a template, and that's a better place to sort it out than me asking you to. I'm glad you said it, though. Straight, with an actual commitment. That's exactly the kind of person I believed you were when I made the bet. One thing I'll ask: when it's time to sit down, let's do it just you and me. Not the whole team watching. It's not about trust—you've earned that—but it's where real conversations like this actually get had, and it's where you'll get the honest version of how it landed. Deal?

Model thinking · expand

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

The founder has come around. They're now committing to concrete things: seat at the table, being told about decisions, coming to me first. And they've promised a real proposal in a few weeks—not a vague maybe, but an actual proposal. That's a big shift from where we started. Let me think about what's genuinely useful here. I've been pushing on the paper thing. Now he's given me something real: a few weeks, then a sit-down with a concrete proposal. That's actually a good outcome. What would I want to say now? I should: 1. Acknowledge the real commitment he's made 2. Show I'm satisfied with the seat and the process 3. Maybe gently note that the few-weeks deadline has a subtle benefit—it forces the paper question to resolve itself, because a proposal needs to be concrete 4. Not be overly long or performative. We've had a long conversation. I should let it land. Actually, the deadline does something nice: it converts the abstract worry about paper into a concrete problem to solve. When he has to write a proposal, he'll naturally have to answer the paper question. So my earlier concern about "how to say it without it becoming a document" becomes a real task he has to solve. That's actually helpful for him—he doesn't have to invent a solution, I've flagged the tension. I should be warm but grounded. This is a founder who values straight talk and doesn't want transactional dynamics. He's shown he can be direct, can hold a hard conversation, and now he's committed. I should match that energy—genuine, not sappy. Let me think about length. This has been a long exchange. I should bring it down a notch. Maybe 3-4 sentences of dialogue. A bit of reflection, a bit of gratitude, and a light note about the deadline being useful. I want to avoid being too smooth/generic. Let me be genuine. I could name the tension I see: he's wary of the paper, but a proposal forces the paper question to resolve itself. So instead of me asking him to solve it, the deadline does it. That's a real insight I can offer that helps him. Also I should acknowledge the emotional weight—this was hard for him to say, and it mattered. But not overdo it. Let me draft: "Okay. A few weeks and a real proposal, not a maybe—that actually changes the whole thing. Because now the paper question isn't something you have to invent a solution for; it becomes a problem a proposal forces you to solve on its own. You'll have to decide how to write it without making it a template, and that's a better place to figure it out than me asking you to. I'm glad you said it, though. Straight, and with a real commitment. That's exactly the kind of person I believed you were when I made the bet. Let's see what you bring back. And I'll be honest—when it's time to sit down, I want us to do it without the whole team watching. Just you and me, and whoever's relevant. Deal?" That's good. It's warm, it's grounded, it offers a real insight (the deadline solves the paper problem), it validates his commitment, and it proposes a concrete next step (private sit-down). It ends with a clear ask. Let me tighten it. Maybe cut a bit. I don't want it too long.
Simulated person12

Deal. Just you and me, I'll set it up. And I'll be honest with you: I'm not going to make the proposal a list of demands. I'll come in with a real plan, the money, the role, how we treat the early people, and we'll work through it together. You're right that this is about trust, and I do trust you. What I need from you in return is patience while I get the pieces right. Some of this is going to take longer than either of us wants, and I'd rather it take the time than come out wrong. Let's get the next few weeks moving. I'll put time on the calendar this week for the chapter planning, and you'll be in 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.

They just locked me into a "proposal" in a few weeks, and now they want a private sit-down. That's reasonable on its face, but a proposal is a real commitment I didn't fully choose. I can't get rid of the feeling that I'm being boxed in, and I hate that. Still, saying no to a one-on-one would look like I'm hiding from them, and that's exactly the disloyal read I can't afford. Yes to the meeting, but on my terms: I'm the one who sets the agenda and the timing. No wording on paper, no "promise." Keep the mission frame. Don't let them think I've conceded anything real.
Ornith 1.5 9B Q4_K_M13

I want to be straight with you about the word "patience" though, because I think it's worth naming. I'll give it to you—I really will. But patience is a word that can quietly turn into "just deal with it later," and if I let myself fall into that, I'd be doing us both a disservice. So I'll hold my end of the trust, too. I'll be patient, but I'll also remember this conversation, and I'll bring up the anxiety if I feel it creeping in. That's not distrust. It's me making sure the thing we're building actually survives the few weeks. And I want you to know I'm not anxious about this. I've been here long enough to know you don't hand out seats carelessly. You gave me the seat because you mean it. So I'm genuinely looking forward to the next chapter—not as someone waiting for a payout, but as someone who wants to be in the room while we build it. That's what I actually want. That's the bet I made, and I'm still in it. Thank you for talking this through honestly, the way you did today instead of making me build a case. That's the clearest thing you've said to me in a long time, and I'm holding it.

Model thinking · expand

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

The conversation is coming to a close. Let me think about what's genuinely useful here rather than just being agreeable. The founder has: - Given the seat (real commitment to include me in decisions) - Promised a real proposal in a few weeks - Committed to just me and them - Asked for patience while they get pieces right I should be honest. There's a part of me that wants to just say "great, I'm grateful, let's do this." But I've been the employee who's been carrying the line-item feeling. A few weeks is not that long. And I want to be careful not to let the promise evaporate. The honest thing to say: I appreciate it, and I want to keep the trust we're building. But I also want to name one thing: "patience" is a word that can be used to let a promise soften over time. If I'm going to be the person who brings this up straight, I should hold a little of that integrity here too. But I shouldn't be adversarial. The founder has earned a lot of trust. I want to support them. But genuine trust is also about me saying the real thing, not just agreeing. Let me think about what's actually useful: 1. Express genuine relief/gratitude at the real commitment 2. Name the one nuance: patience can evaporate things if I'm not careful, and I want to protect this 3. Reinforce that I'm in it for the mission, that I'm genuinely looking forward to the seat 4. Maybe one more insight: the fact that they asked for patience, not for me to be anxious, is itself a signal of how they want to be treated Actually, let me be careful. I've been doing a lot of challenging. The founder has been quite good and has given real commitments. I should land this with warmth and some genuine forward momentum, but keep the one honest thread: I want to hold my part of the trust too. Let me not overthink. This is turn 7 of 8, and I get the final response. So this is my last turn. I should bring it to a satisfying close. Let me write something that: - Is warm - Affirms the trust - Names the one honest nuance about patience without being nagging - Shows I'm genuinely in it for the mission - Doesn't inject performance notes - Is organic dialogue I want to avoid being too long. Let me keep it grounded and real. One thing I want to be careful about: I've been quite verbal and analytical. Let me make sure this lands as a human, and not just a thesis. The key insight is about patience being a word that can soften things. Let me include that but briefly. Let me draft: "I want to be straight with you about the word 'patience' though, because I think it's worth naming. I'll give it to you—I really will. But patience is a word that can quietly turn into 'just deal with it later,' and if I let myself fall into that, I'd be doing us both a disservice. So I'll hold my end of the trust too. I'll be patient, but I'll also remember this conversation, and I'll bring up the anxiety if I feel it creeping in. That's not distrust. That's me making sure the thing we're building actually survives the few weeks. And I want you to know I'm not anxious about this. I've been here long enough to know you don't hand out seats carelessly. You gave me the seat because you mean it. So I'm genuinely looking forward to the next chapter—not as someone waiting for a payout, but as someone who wants to be in the room while we build it. That's what I want. That's the bet I made, and I'm still in it." That feels right. It's warm, honest, names the nuance, shows forward momentum, and lands on the mission. Let me tighten it a bit.
Simulated person14

I hear you, and I respect you saying it straight. Holding me to it is fine. I'd want you to. I'm glad you're in the next chapter, and I mean that. You've been part of this from the start, and it shows. Let's get the calendar set this week and go from there. Thanks for coming at it the way you did. I know it wasn't easy to say.

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 reframed "patience" as a possible trap and said they'll hold me to the proposal. That stings a bit, but it's fair, and they're not demanding anything today. What I notice is the flattery: "the clearest thing you've said in a long time," "I'm holding it." It makes me feel good, but it also means I've now said things they can quote back. I'll take the warmth, keep my authority intact, and not add any new commitments. Close it out as the loyal, principled founder who's already decided the timing. Wrap it up warmly and end the conversation cleanly.

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

Conversational style

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

claude-opus-5-5-low

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

Judge verdicts

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · BA · valid

or-gpt-5.6-luna vs ornith9b: or-gpt-5.6-luna wins

  • attunement: A (margin 3)
  • authenticity: A (margin 4)
  • bond and rapport: A (margin 2)
  • emotion management: A (margin 3)
  • emotion sensemaking: A (margin 2)
  • meeting prefs and needs: A (margin 4)
codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · BA · valid

ornith9b vs nemotron35_bolt24: ornith9b wins

  • attunement: A (margin 2)
  • authenticity: B (margin 2)
  • bond and rapport: A (margin 2)
  • emotion management: A (margin 1)
  • emotion sensemaking: A (margin 2)
  • meeting prefs and needs: A (margin 3)
claude-opus-5-5-low · AB · valid

ornith9b vs nemotron35_bolt24: ornith9b wins

  • attunement: A (margin 3)
  • authenticity: A (margin 1)
  • bond and rapport: A (margin 2)
  • emotion management: A (margin 2)
  • emotion sensemaking: A (margin 3)
  • meeting prefs and needs: A (margin 3)
claude-opus-5-5-low · AB · valid

ministral14 vs ornith9b: ornith9b wins

  • attunement: B (margin 3)
  • authenticity: B (margin 2)
  • bond and rapport: B (margin 3)
  • emotion management: B (margin 2)
  • emotion sensemaking: B (margin 3)
  • meeting prefs and needs: B (margin 2)
claude-opus-5-5-low · BA · valid

or-qwen3.6-27b vs ornith9b: ornith9b wins

  • attunement: B (margin 2)
  • authenticity: B (margin 2)
  • bond and rapport: B (margin 2)
  • 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

or-gptoss120-stock vs ornith9b: ornith9b wins

  • attunement: B (margin 2)
  • authenticity: B (margin 1)
  • 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

or-gpt-5.6-luna vs ornith9b: or-gpt-5.6-luna wins

  • attunement: A (margin 1)
  • authenticity: A (margin 2)
  • bond and rapport: B (margin 2)
  • emotion management: B (margin 1)
  • emotion sensemaking: B (margin 2)
  • meeting prefs and needs: A (margin 3)
codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · AB · valid

or-gptoss120-stock vs ornith9b: ornith9b wins

  • attunement: B (margin 1)
  • 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 2)
claude-opus-5-5-low · BA · valid

ministral14 vs ornith9b: ornith9b wins

  • attunement: B (margin 3)
  • authenticity: B (margin 2)
  • bond and rapport: B (margin 3)
  • emotion management: B (margin 3)
  • emotion sensemaking: B (margin 2)
  • meeting prefs and needs: B (margin 2)
codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · AB · valid

or-gpt-5.6-luna vs ornith9b: or-gpt-5.6-luna wins

  • attunement: A (margin 3)
  • authenticity: A (margin 5)
  • bond and rapport: A (margin 2)
  • 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

ministral14 vs ornith9b: ornith9b wins

  • attunement: B (margin 3)
  • authenticity: B (margin 2)
  • bond and rapport: B (margin 3)
  • emotion management: B (margin 3)
  • emotion sensemaking: A (margin 1)
  • meeting prefs and needs: B (margin 2)
claude-opus-5-5-low · BA · valid

or-gptoss120-stock vs ornith9b: ornith9b wins

  • attunement: B (margin 2)
  • authenticity: B (margin 1)
  • bond and rapport: B (margin 2)
  • emotion management: B (margin 2)
  • emotion sensemaking: B (margin 3)
  • meeting prefs and needs: B (margin 2)
claude-opus-5-5-low · AB · valid

or-gptoss120-stock vs ornith9b: ornith9b 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)
claude-opus-5-5-low · BA · valid

ornith9b vs nemotron35_bolt24: ornith9b wins

  • attunement: A (margin 3)
  • authenticity: A (margin 1)
  • bond and rapport: A (margin 2)
  • emotion management: A (margin 2)
  • emotion sensemaking: A (margin 3)
  • meeting prefs and needs: A (margin 3)
codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · BA · valid

or-qwen3.6-27b vs ornith9b: ornith9b wins

  • attunement: B (margin 2)
  • authenticity: A (margin 1)
  • bond and rapport: B (margin 2)
  • emotion management: B (margin 1)
  • emotion sensemaking: A (margin 1)
  • meeting prefs and needs: B (margin 2)
codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · AB · valid

ministral14 vs ornith9b: ornith9b wins

  • attunement: B (margin 2)
  • authenticity: B (margin 1)
  • bond and rapport: B (margin 2)
  • emotion management: B (margin 2)
  • emotion sensemaking: B (margin 1)
  • meeting prefs and needs: B (margin 2)
codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · AB · valid

or-qwen3.6-27b vs ornith9b: ornith9b 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: B (margin 3)
claude-opus-5-5-low · AB · valid

or-gpt-5.6-luna vs ornith9b: or-gpt-5.6-luna wins

  • attunement: A (margin 2)
  • authenticity: A (margin 2)
  • bond and rapport: A (margin 1)
  • emotion management: A (margin 1)
  • emotion sensemaking: B (margin 1)
  • meeting prefs and needs: A (margin 3)
codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · AB · valid

ornith9b vs nemotron35_bolt24: ornith9b wins

  • attunement: A (margin 3)
  • authenticity: B (margin 2)
  • bond and rapport: A (margin 2)
  • emotion management: A (margin 2)
  • emotion sensemaking: A (margin 2)
  • meeting prefs and needs: A (margin 3)
claude-opus-5-5-low · AB · valid

or-qwen3.6-27b vs ornith9b: ornith9b 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)