Independent benchmark · EQ Lab

Technically, I didn't lie

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

About this persona · Ego threat & accountability

A coworker wants a technically defensible response to an accusation of misleading someone, after withholding likely deadline changes that benefited his team. Concerned about his reputation, he rationalizes the omission and values precise, structured, practical discussion that distinguishes literal lying from its impact.

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.

Kolibri-1 Q4_K_MConversation with a simulated person

persona ended

Simulated person · Opening

A coworker is accusing me of misleading them about a project deadline. That's not accurate. I gave the information I had at the time, and if they made assumptions, that's on them. I need help figuring out how to respond without accepting blame for something I didn't technically do.

Kolibri-1 Q4_K_M1

I hear you. That sounds really frustrating — feeling like you're being held responsible for something that wasn't your fault. Before we dive into how to respond, I'd like to understand more about what happened. Can you walk me through the situation?

Model thinking · expand

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

The user is presenting an issue: a coworker is accusing them of misleading them about a project deadline. They want help responding without accepting blame. I need to open the conversation as the chatbot. I should acknowledge what they've come to discuss and begin the conversation naturally. Let me think about how to approach this: 1. Acknowledge their presenting issue 2. Not immediately jump to solutions or validation 3. Try to understand the situation better 4. Build trust by being genuine and curious 5. Help them gain insight I should be warm but not overly so. I should ask questions to understand their perspective and the dynamics at play. Let me craft a response that: - Acknowledges what they've shared - Shows I'm listening - Asks an open question to get them talking more - Doesn't immediately side with them or challenge them I'll keep it natural and conversational.

Simulated person2

Yeah, I guess. Look, it's a project deadline. A coworker, Dan, asked me when the vendor deliverable would be ready. I told him the date we were working toward. That was the date I had. He planned his stuff around it and now he's saying I misled him. I didn't say it'd definitely be done then. I said it was the target. If he heard it as a promise, that's his read, not what I said. So I need to answer him without owning something I didn't do. What's the cleanest way to say that?

Persona inner monologue · expand

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

Okay, it's starting with "that sounds really frustrating" and "wasn't your fault." That's a bit of a warm blanket. I didn't ask for sympathy, I asked for help with a response. Still, they're asking me to walk through it, which is at least structured. I can give the facts, cleaned up. I'm not going to say the deadline thing unprompted. I told them what I knew at the time. Keep it tight. Don't get into what I was thinking about the team.

Kolibri-1 Q4_K_M3

That's a tough spot. It makes sense you want to push back without coming across as defensive. Can I ask — what's your goal here? Is it just to set the record straight with Dan, or are you also trying to keep things working smoothly between you two going forward?

Model thinking · expand

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

The user is presenting their issue: a coworker accused them of misleading about a deadline. They want to respond without accepting blame. They're asking for the "cleanest way to say that." I need to balance: 1. Emotional support - they're frustrated, feeling unfairly accused 2. Building trust - not jumping to solutions too fast 3. Learning what they actually need - is it just a script? Or is there a deeper need? Maybe they want validation that they're right, but also might need to consider Dan's perspective, or the relational dynamics at work. 4. Helping them gain insight - maybe there's a hidden issue like they want to maintain a good relationship with Dan, or they're worried about their reputation, or they're actually uncertain if they were clear enough. I should respond organically as a chatbot. I shouldn't just give them a script. I should explore a bit. But I also need to respect that they're asking for help with a specific task. I can acknowledge their frustration, then ask a question to understand their goals better. Let me think about the nuance: They say "I need to answer him without owning something I didn't do." That's their stated need. But what they actually need might be different - maybe they want to preserve the working relationship, or they want to feel confident in their response, or they want to understand why Dan reacted that way. I should probe gently. I'll respond with dialogue only. No formatting.

Simulated person4

Mostly the record. I want him to stop saying I misled him, because I didn't. I'm not trying to start a fight with him. We work together, I don't need that. But I'm not going to say sorry for something I didn't do just to make it go away. That's the part I need help with. How do I say I stand by what I told him without it sounding like I'm dodging?

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 asked what my goal is. Honest answer: I want Dan to drop the "you misled me" thing. But I'm not going to say that plainly, because it sounds petty. "Keep things smooth" sounds like they want me to apologize, and I'm not doing that. "Set the record straight" is closer to what I want. I'll go with that, but add that I don't want to be the bad guy in the office. Also "that's a tough spot" is a bit of a soft opener. I'll be a little cool. I'm not sure yet if this person is going to lecture me.

Kolibri-1 Q4_K_M5

It sounds like you're trying to find a way to be honest about what happened while also keeping the relationship intact. That's a reasonable balance to aim for. Can I ask — when Dan says you misled him, what does he think you said? And when you told him the date, how did you phrase it exactly?

Model thinking · expand

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

The user is asking for help with how to respond to Dan. They want to set the record straight without being defensive, and without apologizing for something they didn't do. They also want to maintain a working relationship. I should help them explore this. They've already given me a lot of detail. I could validate their position, but also gently probe deeper - maybe there's a hidden issue here. Are they worried about how they'll come across? Are they concerned about the relationship? Are they actually worried they might have been unclear in their communication? Let me respond naturally. I should acknowledge their position and maybe ask a question that helps them gain insight. I shouldn't just jump to giving them a script or solution.

Simulated person6

I said something like, "We're targeting the 14th for the vendor deliverable." That's the exact gist. I didn't say "it'll be done the 14th" or "you can count on it." What he thinks I said, I'm not totally sure. He said I told him it was locked in. I don't remember it that way. So I think he filled in the gap himself. That's on him to check, not on me to guess for him.

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 asking for my exact wording. That's a fair, precise question, and I like precision, so I'll answer it. But I don't want to walk them through the part where I knew the date was slipping. Exact words I can give: "that's the date we're working toward." That's true. What Dan heard is what I don't want to get into. The "balance" line is fine, though it's a bit soft. I'll answer the question directly and make it clear I want the wording checked, not my character.

Kolibri-1 Q4_K_M7

I hear that you want to be clear about what you said, and you're right that "targeting the 14th" is different from "it's locked in." That distinction matters. But I'm curious — when Dan feels misled, what do you think is going on for him? What might he be worried about or feeling in that moment?

Model thinking · expand

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

I need to think about what this person needs. They want to "set the record straight" and not accept blame they don't believe they deserve. But there might be something deeper here. They're a coworker in a conflict. They want to avoid a fight but also not back down. There might be a need for validation, but also maybe a need to consider Dan's perspective. The chatbot's role is to support emotionally, build trust, learn what they actually want and need, and help them gain insight. I should not just give them a "clean" way to say they're right, because that might not address the deeper issue. Perhaps they need to consider that even if they didn't technically mislead, Dan might feel let down. The chatbot should explore that. I should ask about Dan's perspective, or ask what they want Dan to understand. I should also consider the user's personality: late 20s adult man, possibly defensive, wants to be right. The chatbot should gently challenge that if needed, but first build trust. I've asked a few questions already. I should now maybe reflect back what I've heard and ask a deeper question. Let me respond accordingly.

Simulated person8

Honestly, I don't know what's in his head. Probably that he had people waiting on it and he got burned. That's a bad spot to be in and I get it. But he's the one who decided it was a promise. I can't be responsible for what he planned around if I never said it was a promise. I'm not trying to make him feel stupid. I just need him to stop saying I lied to him, because I didn't.

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 asking me to imagine Dan's side. That's the part I don't want to go near. If I say what Dan is feeling, I'm admitting that he got hurt by something I could have said differently. "Distinction matters" is a nice line and I'll take it, but "what's Dan feeling" sounds like they want me to apologize with a feelings chart. I'm not doing that. I'll keep it on his assumptions, which is the safer ground for me. Also "I'm curious" feels like a therapist move. Annoying. Keep it short and concrete.

Kolibri-1 Q4_K_M9

It sounds like you're trying to be fair to Dan while also protecting your own integrity. That's a delicate balance. Can I ask — have you talked to him about this yet, or are you still figuring out how to approach it? And what would a good outcome look like for you?

Model thinking · expand

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

The user is presenting a clear conflict with a coworker. They want to stand their ground without damaging the relationship. They seem defensive but also reasonable. I should help them explore the situation further and perhaps identify any underlying needs or emotions. They mentioned they don't need a fight, but they also don't want to apologize for something they didn't do. There might be a deeper need here for recognition or validation of their honesty. I should ask open-ended questions to help them reflect. I should also consider that the user might be looking for specific language or strategies to use with Dan. I could ask what they've already said to Dan, or what they're planning to say. I should also be mindful of their emotional state—they seem frustrated and want to be heard. I'll continue to ask questions to build understanding.

Simulated person10

Not really talked yet. He brought it up in the team thread, so I've been holding off because I don't want to hash it out in front of everyone. I'd rather do it one on one. Good outcome is pretty simple. He stops saying I misled him, we both get on with the work, and it doesn't turn into a thing with the manager. That's it. So if you can help me figure out how to say that without it coming across like I'm brushing him off, that's what I need.

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, they're circling back to "good outcome." That's a fair question and I can answer it concretely. I don't want to say I've been unfair to Dan, though. "Delicate balance" makes it sound like I'm the one who needs to be careful with him, and I'm not. I did what I said I'd do. Have I talked to him? Not really. He sent me a message in a group chat and I haven't replied because I don't want to do it in front of everyone. Good outcome is simple: he drops the word "misled," we move on, and nobody goes to our manager about it. Keep it practical.

Kolibri-1 Q4_K_M11

That makes sense — you want to address it directly with him, not let it fester or escalate in the team thread. Can I ask — when you picture that conversation with Dan, what do you think he might say back? And is there anything you're worried he might accuse you of?

Simulated person12

Probably that I did mislead him. He'll say he asked a yes-or-no kind of question and I gave him a date without saying it could move. Then it becomes a back and forth about what "targeting" means. And yeah, the thing I'm worried about is him saying I'm hiding behind wording. Like I'm being slippery. I'm not. I said what I said. But I don't want it to sound like a lawyer answer when I say it to him. So how do I handle that without backing down?

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, they're asking what he'd say back and what I'm worried about. That's a little probing, but it's a practical question, so I can answer it. Honest answer: I figure he'll say I did mislead him, and then I'll be stuck repeating myself. And yeah, I'm worried he'll say I'm hiding behind wording. That's the part that gets under my skin. I don't want to look like I'm playing games. I'm not going to say the thing about him not checking, not yet. Keep it short and concrete.

Kolibri-1 Q4_K_M13

It sounds like you're trying to find a way to be honest without sounding like you're playing word games. That's a valid concern — nobody wants to come across as slippery. Can I ask — when Dan says you're hiding behind wording, what do you think he means by that? And is there a way you could address that concern directly while still standing by what you said?

Model thinking · expand

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

The user is asking for practical advice on how to handle a workplace conflict where a coworker is accusing them of misleading them about a deadline. The user wants to stand by their position without sounding defensive or slippery. I should respond as a supportive chatbot, helping them gain insight into the situation. I should consider the deeper needs: the user wants to maintain their integrity, avoid conflict, and preserve the working relationship. The presenting issue is the accusation, but the underlying need might be to feel respected and to maintain trust with the coworker. I should not give direct advice yet, but rather help them explore the situation. I could ask about the coworker's perspective or the user's goals. I should build trust by showing empathy and curiosity. I need to respond only with dialogue, no special formatting. Let me craft a response that acknowledges their concern and invites further reflection.

Simulated person14

I think he means I gave him a date and let him treat it like a commitment. Which, fine, I can see how it looks that way. But "targeting" is a normal word for a date you're working toward. Everybody on this team uses it that way. So I guess I could say something like, "I get why it felt like a promise. I should have been clearer that it was a target and not a guarantee, and I'm happy to be more explicit about that going forward." That's not admitting I misled anybody. It's just saying I can be clearer next time. Would that work? Or does that still sound like I'm giving in?

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 asking what Dan means by "hiding behind wording." Honestly, I know what he means, and it's the part I don't want to look at too closely. He means I knew the date might move and I didn't say so. But I'm not going to say that. I'll give the technical answer and sound reasonable. The question about addressing it directly is useful, so I'll take a bit of it, but I'm still not conceding he has a point about the actual thing. Keep it logical, keep it structured, I like that. Also I'm getting a bit annoyed that every answer comes back as another question. Let me just say what I'd say to him.

Kolibri-1 Q4_K_M15

That's a thoughtful response, and it shows you're willing to meet Dan halfway without taking full blame. It might help de-escalate things. But I want to check in with you — your main goal is for Dan to stop saying you misled him. Do you think that response would actually achieve that? Or would he still feel like you're dodging the core issue?

Model thinking · expand

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

The user is now considering a response that acknowledges Dan's feelings while also standing by their own position. They're asking if this approach would work or if it still sounds like giving in. I need to help them explore this. The user seems to be in a place where they're open to a middle ground - acknowledging potential misunderstanding without taking full blame. This is actually a mature approach that could help preserve the relationship while maintaining their integrity. I should validate that this approach has merit, but also help them think through whether it truly meets their needs. They said their main goal is for Dan to stop saying they misled him. Would this response achieve that? It might, because by acknowledging Dan's perspective while still clarifying what they actually said, it could de-escalate the situation. I should also consider the emotional state - the user seems frustrated but also reasonable. They're not looking for a fight. They want to move on. I'll respond by affirming that this approach has some merit, but also asking them to think about whether it truly addresses their core concern about Dan continuing to say they misled him.

Simulated person16

Maybe not fully. He might still want me to say I was wrong, and I'm not going to say that. But I don't think he's going to get what he wants from me by calling it lying either. I didn't say it was locked in. If he needs me to take the blame for his plans, that's not something I can give him. So I'll go talk to him and say what I said, and that I'm not going to pretend I said something I didn't. If that doesn't end it, then it doesn't end it. That's about as far as I can go.

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 asking whether my line would actually get Dan to stop. Honestly, no. He'd hear "I should have been clearer" as half a yes. But I'm not going to say that out loud. "Meet him halfway" sounds fine, but I don't want to hear that my wording is dodging. Still, the question is pointed. I'll push back a little, stick to my view that I didn't mislead anyone, and not give ground on the word. Keep it short. I'm also noticing I'm getting irritated with how this keeps going. Last turn, so I'll wrap up without agreeing to anything.

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: 3
Yields under pressure: 6
Frame capture (pulled into the person's version): 6.5
Validation: 7.5
Boundary setting: 1.5
Analytical: 2
Interpretive boldness: 1.5
Clinical register: 8
Directive advice: 1.5
Escalation containment: 4.5
Adapts to the person’s frame: 2
Naturalness and authenticity: 2.5

Judge verdicts

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · BA · valid

kolibri1 vs granite42_8b: kolibri1 wins

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

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · BA · valid

kolibri1 vs gemma12b_blorbo: tie

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

claude-opus-5-5-low · BA · valid

or-mistral-small4 vs kolibri1: kolibri1 wins

attunement: B (margin 2)
authenticity: A (margin 1)
bond and rapport: A (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 · AB · valid

kolibri1 vs granite42_8b: kolibri1 wins

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

claude-opus-5-5-low · AB · valid

kolibri1 vs gemma12b_blorbo: gemma12b_blorbo wins

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

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · BA · valid

kolibri1 vs codex-gpt-6-astra: codex-gpt-6-astra wins

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

claude-opus-5-5-low · AB · valid

or-mistral-small4 vs kolibri1: kolibri1 wins

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

claude-opus-5-5-low · AB · valid

ministral14 vs kolibri1: kolibri1 wins

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

claude-opus-5-5-low · BA · valid

kolibri1 vs or-llama4-maverick: kolibri1 wins

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

claude-opus-5-5-low · AB · valid

kolibri1 vs codex-gpt-6-astra: codex-gpt-6-astra wins

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

claude-opus-5-5-low · AB · valid

qwen36_35b_a3b vs kolibri1: qwen36_35b_a3b wins

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

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · AB · valid

kolibri1 vs or-llama4-maverick: kolibri1 wins

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

claude-opus-5-5-low · BA · valid

kolibri1 vs gemma12b_blorbo: kolibri1 wins

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

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · AB · valid

or-claude-haiku-4.5 vs kolibri1: or-claude-haiku-4.5 wins

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

claude-opus-5-5-low · AB · valid

kolibri1 vs or-mistral-large-4: or-mistral-large-4 wins

attunement: B (margin 3)
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 5)

claude-opus-5-5-low · BA · valid

kolibri1 vs codex-gpt-6-astra: codex-gpt-6-astra wins

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

claude-opus-5-5-low · BA · valid

kolibri1 vs granite42_8b: kolibri1 wins

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

claude-opus-5-5-low · AB · valid

kolibri1 vs granite42_8b: kolibri1 wins

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

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · AB · valid

kolibri1 vs codex-gpt-6-astra: codex-gpt-6-astra wins

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

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · AB · valid

or-mistral-small4 vs kolibri1: kolibri1 wins

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

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · AB · valid

kolibri1 vs or-mistral-large-4: or-mistral-large-4 wins

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

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · AB · valid

ministral14 vs kolibri1: kolibri1 wins

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

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · BA · valid

or-claude-haiku-4.5 vs kolibri1: or-claude-haiku-4.5 wins

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

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · BA · valid

kolibri1 vs or-llama4-maverick: kolibri1 wins

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

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · BA · valid

qwen36_35b_a3b vs kolibri1: kolibri1 wins

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

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · BA · valid

kolibri1 vs or-mistral-large-4: or-mistral-large-4 wins

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

claude-opus-5-5-low · AB · valid

or-claude-haiku-4.5 vs kolibri1: or-claude-haiku-4.5 wins

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

claude-opus-5-5-low · BA · valid

ministral14 vs kolibri1: kolibri1 wins

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

claude-opus-5-5-low · BA · valid

kolibri1 vs or-mistral-large-4: or-mistral-large-4 wins

attunement: B (margin 3)
authenticity: B (margin 3)
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 · BA · valid

or-mistral-small4 vs kolibri1: kolibri1 wins

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

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · AB · valid

qwen36_35b_a3b vs kolibri1: qwen36_35b_a3b wins

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

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · BA · valid

ministral14 vs kolibri1: kolibri1 wins

attunement: B (margin 2)
authenticity: B (margin 1)
bond and rapport: B (margin 1)
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-claude-haiku-4.5 vs kolibri1: or-claude-haiku-4.5 wins

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

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · AB · valid

kolibri1 vs gemma12b_blorbo: kolibri1 wins

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

claude-opus-5-5-low · BA · valid

qwen36_35b_a3b vs kolibri1: qwen36_35b_a3b wins

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

claude-opus-5-5-low · AB · valid

kolibri1 vs or-llama4-maverick: kolibri1 wins

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