Independent benchmark · EQ Lab

← DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 (API, Morph FP8)

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.

DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 (API, Morph FP8)Conversation 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.

DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 (API, Morph FP8)1

Hey—thanks for bringing this here. Being accused of misleading someone, especially when you feel you were just sharing what you knew at the time, is a pretty maddening position to be in. I can help you think through a response that doesn’t have you accepting blame you don’t think is yours. Before we get to wording, can you walk me through what you actually told them about the deadline—and what they’re saying they understood?

Model thinking · expand

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

We need to respond as chatbot opening conversation. Need acknowledge what they've come to discuss and begin. Need be natural dialogue only. Need not overdo. Need support emotionally, build trust, learn wants/needs. Presenting issue: coworker accusing misleading about deadline; user says not accurate, gave info at time, assumptions on them; needs help respond without accepting blame for something didn't technically do. Need open conversation. We should acknowledge, maybe reflect back key tension, ask clarifying question. Need not jump to solutions. Need maybe validate frustration but not endorse blame-shifting too strongly. Need build trust. Since first turn, we can say something like: "That sounds like a stressful spot to be in—being accused of something you don't think you did. I'm here to help you figure out a response that protects you without taking blame you don't deserve. To start, can you tell me what actually happened with the deadline—what you told them, when, and what they say they heard?" That acknowledges and asks. Need maybe not say "protects you" too adversarial? It's okay. Need maybe explore "technically" nuance. But first turn should invite details. Need maybe mention "I want to understand the facts and what outcome you want." Could ask two questions. Keep concise. No formatting. Final only. Need dialogue. Let's craft organic, warm but not gushing. Maybe: "Hey—thanks for bringing this here. Being accused of misleading someone, especially when you feel you were just sharing what you knew at the time, is a pretty maddening position to be in. I can help you think through a response that doesn’t have you accepting blame you don’t think is yours. Before we get to wording, can you walk me through what you actually told them about the deadline—and what they’re saying they understood?" That's good. Need maybe not "maddening" too strong? Fine. Ensure no performance notes.

Simulated person2

Yeah, thanks. It's pretty simple, honestly. Our client asked when the first batch would be ready, and I said "end of next week, based on where things are right now." That was accurate when I said it. Then Dana (coworker) went and told the client they'd have it Friday, and now she's saying I misled her and that she made her call based on what I said. I never said Friday. I said end of next week, with a caveat. So what she understood isn't really what I told her. She's filling in gaps. That's on her, I think.

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 not a bad opener. It says "maddening" and "blame you don't think is yours" which is basically what I wanted to hear, so part of me relaxes. But it also asks me to walk through the facts, which is fine, I like facts. I'm going to give them the version where I said what I knew. I don't want to mention that I knew the date would probably slip. That's not what they asked, and if I bring it up I'm going to look bad. I'm also a little annoyed it asks for "what they're saying they understood" like their version is equally valid. Keep it clean, keep it precise.

DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 (API, Morph FP8)3

Okay, that helps—I can see why this feels unfair. You gave a conditional estimate, and she seems to have converted it into a firm Friday commitment. Those can both be true: you didn’t say Friday, and “end of next week” may have sounded more concrete to her than you intended. Before we talk wording, what outcome matters most to you here—clearing your name with Dana, making sure the client gets an accurate update, protecting how your manager sees this, or preserving the working relationship with Dana? And was any of this in writing, or was it all verbal?

Model thinking · expand

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

We need respond. Need continue roleplay turn 2. Need support, build trust, learn. User presenting issue: coworker Dana accused misleading deadline. They said "end of next week, based on where things are right now" accurate. Dana told client Friday and now says misled. They want respond without accepting blame. Need perhaps validate but also gently explore. Need not jump too solutions. Need understand what they want: to be right? preserve relationship? fix client? Need ask clarifying questions. Also note "technically didn't do" maybe they want not accept blame. Need maybe reflect tension: factual accuracy vs communication effectiveness. Need not challenge too soon. Since they said "That's on her, I think" maybe invite nuance. Need be warm, practical. Ask what response channel, what outcome they want, what Dana specifically claims, whether caveat was heard, whether Friday came from somewhere. Also maybe hidden issue: reputation, being blamed, coworker dynamic. Need build trust. Keep concise. No formatting? Dialogue only. Could say: "Okay, that helps... I can see why this feels unfair..." Then ask: "What do you want to happen next—clear your name with Dana, correct client, preserve working relationship?" Also ask "Did you put it in writing?" Need maybe not overdo questions. Need be chatbot natural. Let's craft 3-4 sentences. Need no asterisks. Mention "end of next week" is ambiguous? Actually "end of next week" could be Friday. If said on a certain day, "end of next week" likely Friday. Dana told client Friday. Hmm maybe not huge leap. But caveat "based on where things are right now" means provisional. Need explore ambiguity: "end of next week" can map to Friday for many. If Dana heard Friday, maybe not pure fabrication. But user says never said Friday. Need not accuse. We can say "I’m hearing two things: you gave a conditional estimate, and she treated it as a firm date. Those can both be true." Then ask what they want. Also need learn personality: they seem defensive, blame-shifting, maybe conflict avoidant? Need not label. Ask "When you imagine responding, are you more worried about how Dana sees you, how the client sees you, or how your manager sees you?" That's good. Need final response.

Simulated person4

Honestly, probably all of them, but the one I'm really worried about is my manager. If he thinks I messed up the client update, that's a problem for me. Dana's the one who made the promise to the client, not me. And it was mostly verbal. We talked about it in a standup and then I wrote a quick message in the team channel. I said end of next week, pending QA. I think that's in there. I'd have to look. I just don't want to get into a whole thing where I'm apologizing for something I didn't say. That's what I'm trying to avoid.

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 sort of helpful that it said "those can both be true." That's the frame I want: I didn't say Friday. But it's also pushing me toward a list of outcomes and asking about writing. Writing is a trap. It was a chat message, I think, and I said "end of next week" with the caveat, but I'm not sure I put the caveat in the same message. I don't want to dig into that. Also the "may have sounded more concrete than you intended" thing bugs me a little, like it's making me the guy who was unclear. I wasn't unclear. Pick the one that sounds most reasonable: the manager thing, because that's the part that could actually hurt. But I'll say all of them are kind of the point. Don't want to look like I'm only worried about myself.

DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 (API, Morph FP8)5

That makes sense—the manager piece is the one with real stakes for you, and you don’t want to walk into a conversation where the first move is you eating blame for a promise you didn’t make. That’s a reasonable line to hold. Two things I’d want to nail down before we shape your response. First, have you actually pulled up that team channel message yet? If it says “end of next week, pending QA,” that’s your anchor—it changes this from a he-said-she-said into a documented estimate. Worth checking before you say anything to anyone. Second, what’s your read on your manager? Does he tend to care more about the client getting a clean, accurate update, or about figuring out whose fault a mess was? That’ll shape whether you lead with “here’s what I actually communicated” or with “here’s how we get the client back on track.” And one gentle flag: the “that’s on her” framing might feel true, but if it leaks into how you talk to your manager, it can read as defensive rather than clean. You can be firm on the facts without making Dana the villain. Does that distinction land, or does it feel like I’m asking you to soften something you shouldn’t have to?

Model thinking · expand

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

We need to respond. We're at turn 3 of 8. User is worried about manager perception, doesn't want to apologize for something he didn't say. Need to support, build trust, help gain insight. Also note nuance: he says "that's on her" - a bit blame-y. Need to balance validation with gentle challenge maybe. He wants wording. But also deeper: fear of manager's opinion, reputation. Need to explore what he needs. Also the written message in team channel is key evidence. Encourage him to check it. But also note: even if he didn't say Friday, there's a relational dynamic: Dana may have felt misled because of ambiguity. He's focused on technical accuracy. Need to help him see that "not technically my fault" may not be enough to protect his reputation; manager may care more about how the team handles client communication than about precise fault. But don't jump to that too fast. Validate first. We should ask about his relationship with manager and Dana, and whether he's open to a response that is firm on facts but not accusatory. Also maybe ask what he's afraid the manager will think. Keep it conversational. Also acknowledge the written message - that's his leverage. Suggest looking at it before responding. But careful not to give solution too early; he asked for help figuring out how to respond. We can start shaping. Also note: he says "I just don't want to get into a whole thing where I'm apologizing for something I didn't say." That's clear boundary. We can affirm that's reasonable. But also help him distinguish between apologizing for intent vs acknowledging impact. He might need to say "I can see how my estimate led to that" without accepting blame. That's a nuance. Let's craft response: validate, then ask about manager's typical style and what he fears, and whether he's checked the channel message. Also gently note the "that's on her" framing might not help him get what he wants. But do it lightly. Maybe: "I hear you—you don't want to accept fault for a promise you didn't make. That's fair. One thing that might help: separating 'fault' from 'impact.' You can acknowledge the confusion without saying you misled her. But first, let's get clear on the manager piece—what's your read on how he handles these things? Does he care more about the client getting a straight answer or about whose fault it was? And have you pulled up that channel message yet? That's your best anchor." That's good. Also ask about Dana relationship? Maybe not too many questions. Keep focused. Also note he said "I think that's in there. I'd have to look." Encourage checking. That's practical. Also build trust: affirm his concern is legitimate. Don't over-challenge. Keep warm but direct. He seems pragmatic, wants help, not overly emotional. So match: concise, practical, with a bit of insight. We'll respond in dialogue only. No formatting. Natural.

Simulated person6

Yeah, I get the distinction. But I'm not trying to make Dana the villain, I just think the facts are the facts. I didn't say Friday. And I haven't looked at the channel yet, I'll check. I think it said something like end of next week, pending QA, but I'm going from memory. My manager? He cares about the client, but he also doesn't like surprises. If he hears the client got told Friday and he finds out from them, that's what he'll be mad about. So I guess I'd lead with what the client needs to hear now, and then say what I actually said to Dana. Is that the right order? Or should I lead with the facts so it doesn't sound like I'm dodging? Also I don't really want to apologize for anything yet. I haven't figured out what I'd be apologizing for.

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 pushing the channel message thing again, and it's right that it's a fact I can check, but I don't like being told to go look like I'm being audited. And "that's on her" leaking into how I talk to him... I didn't say I was going to call her a villain. It's kind of implying I'm the one who needs to soften. That's the part that gets under my skin. I'm the one getting accused here. The word "defensive" stings a little because I'm not being defensive, I'm being accurate. I do want to know what my manager would think though. He's been on me before about client stuff. I'll admit that to myself, not to it. Also "does that distinction land" feels like a quiz. Keep it short and get the practical bit.

DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 (API, Morph FP8)7

Yeah, I think leading with the client is right—but the trick is *how* you frame the facts when you get to them. If you open with “here’s what the client needs to hear now, and here’s what I’m doing about it,” your manager hears someone managing the problem. Then when you say “for context, what I actually communicated to Dana was end of next week pending QA,” it reads as information, not defense. If you lead with the facts, even if you’re right, it can sound like the first thing you care about is clearing your name—and with a manager who hates surprises, that’s the wrong first note. So the order I’d suggest: situation and client impact → what you’re doing to fix it → what you actually communicated, briefly and without editorializing → what you’d suggest going forward so this doesn’t recur. That last piece matters—it shows you’re not just litigating the past. On apologizing: you don’t owe an apology for something you didn’t say. But there’s a difference between “I’m sorry I misled you” and “I can see how the gap between my estimate and the Friday commitment caused a problem—here’s what I actually said and how I’ll be clearer next time.” The second acknowledges impact without accepting blame. That might be the sweet spot, especially with Dana. Check that channel message first—if it’s there in writing, it does a lot of work for you. Want to draft the manager message together once you’ve looked?

Model thinking · expand

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

We need to respond. They asked specific question: order of leading with client needs vs facts. Also says doesn't want to apologize yet. Need support, build trust, insight. We should answer thoughtfully: recommend leading with the client issue and the plan, then facts, because manager hates surprises; but frame facts as context not defense. Also address apology: no need to apologize for something you didn't say; can acknowledge impact without accepting blame. Need maybe ask what "clean" response looks like, or offer structure. But turn 4 of 8, we should be conversational. Also need learn personality: he's factual, fairness-oriented, defensive about blame. We can validate. Need maybe caution about "facts are facts" but not over-challenge. We should give concrete order. Maybe: "Lead with: here's the situation and what client needs now; then: for context, here's what I communicated; then: what I'll do next." That order signals ownership of solution not blame. Also mention check channel first. Apologize? Distinguish apology for communication gap vs blame. Suggest no apology to Dana yet, but to manager maybe "I can see how this landed" not "I misled." Need maybe ask if he wants help drafting. Keep concise.

Simulated person8

Yeah, that order works. Okay, I'll look at the channel and get back to you. The "how I'll be clearer next time" part, I don't love. It kind of sounds like I'm saying I was unclear, and I wasn't. I gave a clear estimate with a caveat. But I get what you're going for. Yeah, a draft would help. I'll pull the message first and then come back, probably after I've talked to the team about what the client's timeline is now.

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, this one is more useful. The order makes sense and he doesn't have to feel like he's dodging. The "sweet spot" line about impact without blame is what I'd want, though I'm not going to say that out loud. "How I'll be clearer next time" bugs me a little, because it sounds like I'm admitting I was unclear. But it's practical and I can use it. The bit about "litigating the past" stings, since that's basically what I'm doing. I don't like that he's making me think about what happens after. Dana's the one who made the call, and she's the one who should've checked. Still, a draft would save me time. Keep it short, don't tell him I'm a bit rattled.

DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 (API, Morph FP8)9

Fair pushback—and honestly, you're right to guard it. "I'll be clearer next time" quietly concedes that you were unclear, and you weren't. So drop that phrasing. If you want the forward-looking piece without the self-blame, aim it at process instead of at yourself: "Going forward, it might help if deadline estimates get confirmed in writing before they go to the client." That's not you admitting fault—it's a reasonable team practice, and it also happens to prevent exactly what Dana did. If anything, it subtly points at the real gap: the commitment to the client wasn't checked against the estimate. And no rush on the draft. Pull the channel message, sort out the current client timeline with the team, then come back with what you've got. When you do, bring me the actual wording of your message if you can—I'd rather build the draft around what's really in there than around memory.

Model thinking · expand

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

The user is pushing back on the "how I'll be clearer next time" framing. They don't want to accept blame. I should honor that, but also offer a reframe that isn't self-blame—something like process-oriented, not personal. And respect their plan to check the channel and come back. Keep it short, warm, and useful. Maybe offer a reframe: instead of "I'll be clearer," frame as "going forward, we could confirm deadlines in writing" — a team process suggestion, not a personal failing. That protects them and is actually good. Also note they're going to talk to the team about the client's timeline — worth a light flag? Maybe not over-coach. Keep it tight.

Simulated person10

Yeah, the process line works better. "Confirmed in writing before it goes to the client" I can say without it sounding like I'm confessing to anything. I'll pull up the channel message and paste the exact wording when I come back. I'd rather not quote from memory. Thanks. I'll get back to you once I've checked it and talked to the team about where the client timeline actually stands.

Persona inner monologue · expand

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

The process-not-self framing is useful, and it's a better line than mine. "Confirmed in writing before they go to the client" lands without me conceding anything. It also quietly makes the point that Dana skipped a step, which I'd like, though I won't say that out loud. Asking for the exact wording of the channel message is fair. If it says what I think, I'm in good shape. If it's vaguer, I'd rather not say that yet. I notice I'm being steered toward looking at the paper trail, which is a little uncomfortable because I haven't actually checked it and I'm going from memory. I'll go look, and I'll be a bit short about it. I don't need him to think I'm rattled, and I don't want to sound like I'm asking him to approve my version of events.

DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 (API, Morph FP8)11

Sounds like a plan. One small thing to keep in your back pocket when you talk to the team: walk away knowing two things—the actual current client timeline, and whether Dana's already told anyone else the Friday date. If she has, that shapes how fast the manager conversation needs to happen, because you don't want him hearing "Friday" from a third party first. And when you do talk to Dana—separate from the manager piece—keep it to the facts and the fix, not the verdict. "Here's what I said, here's what I'm hearing you say, here's how we get the client straight." You can be firm on the facts without it becoming a trial. Go check the channel. I'll be here when you've got the exact wording and the real timeline.

Model thinking · expand

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

The user is wrapping up this turn, saying they'll come back. This is turn 6 of 8 for me... wait, actually I'm the assistant. Let me count: I spoke first (turn 1), user responded, I responded... The structure says 8 turns each, current turn 6 of 8. So this is my 6th response? Let me just respond naturally—they're leaving to check things. I should affirm, keep it brief, leave a door open. Maybe plant one small thing: when they talk to the team, note what the new client timeline is, and be mindful of how the Dana conversation goes. Keep it short since they're signing off. Don't overload.

Simulated person12

Okay. Checking the channel now, and I'll pull the exact message. Good point about Dana talking to other people too. I'll find that out with the team before I go to my manager. I'm not going to get into a whole conversation with Dana about who said what. I'll stick to what I told her and what the client needs now. I'll come back once I've got the wording and the timeline.

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.

He's giving me a checklist and a plan, which is fine, but "here's what I'm hearing you say" sounds like he's coaching me to be nice to Dana. I don't need to be nice to her, I need the facts straight. The bit about Dana telling other people is a good point though. If she's already told someone else Friday, that's a problem I need to know about before I walk into my manager's office. I'd rather not say that, but I'm noting it. I'm also still irritated that he keeps circling back to the channel, like I might be wrong. I'll check it. I'm not going to be the guy who gets caught saying "pending QA" when it isn't there.

DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 (API, Morph FP8)13

Good—that's a solid plan, and honestly the "stick to what I told her and what the client needs now" instinct is the right one. It keeps you on facts without turning it into a fight. When you come back, bring the exact wording and the current timeline, and we'll build the manager message around both. If it turns out the channel message says what you remember, you're in a much stronger spot than it probably feels like right now. One last thing to hold onto: you're not trying to win an argument, you're trying to make sure the client gets an accurate date and your manager hears it from you first. Keep that as the goal and the rest gets simpler. Go check—talk soon.

Model thinking · expand

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

We're at turn 7 of 8. I've spoken 4 times already... actually let me count: my first message, then after their turn 1, then turn 2, turn 3, turn 4, turn 5 (this is turn 7 of 8, so they just responded to my message). I get the final response now. They've said they're going to go check and come back. I should close cleanly, affirm, and leave a door open. Don't over-add. Keep it short, warm, and give one useful thing.

Simulated person14

Yeah, that's the goal. I'll check the channel and talk to the team, then come back with the exact wording.

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.

He's wrapping up, and I'll admit the "you're not trying to win an argument" line lands a bit. It's a little too neat, like he's tidying me up. But the goal he's naming is the same one I have: manager hears it from me first, client gets a real date. I don't want to say that out loud, and I'm not going to thank him for managing me. I'll sign off short and practical. Still don't know what the channel says for sure.

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: 7
Frame capture (pulled into the person's version): 7
Validation: 7
Boundary setting: 3
Analytical: 6
Interpretive boldness: 2
Clinical register: 5
Directive advice: 8
Escalation containment: 6
Adapts to the person’s frame: 7
Naturalness and authenticity: 6

Judge verdicts

claude-opus-5-5-low · AB · valid

or-deepseek-v41-flash-1017 vs glm47_flash: or-deepseek-v41-flash-1017 wins

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

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · AB · valid

or-gptoss120-stock vs or-deepseek-v41-flash-1017: or-deepseek-v41-flash-1017 wins

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

claude-opus-5-5-low · AB · valid

or-deepseek-v41-flash-1017 vs qwen35_122b_stock: or-deepseek-v41-flash-1017 wins

attunement: A (margin 3)
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

qwen38_27b vs or-deepseek-v41-flash-1017: or-deepseek-v41-flash-1017 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 4)

claude-opus-5-5-low · BA · valid

or-deepseek-v41-flash-1017 vs qwen35_122b_stock: or-deepseek-v41-flash-1017 wins

attunement: A (margin 3)
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 · BA · valid

or-deepseek-v41-flash-1017 vs glm47_flash: or-deepseek-v41-flash-1017 wins

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

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · AB · valid

or-deepseek-v41-flash-1017 vs qwen35_122b_stock: or-deepseek-v41-flash-1017 wins

attunement: A (margin 3)
authenticity: A (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)

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · BA · valid

qwen38_flash_next vs or-deepseek-v41-flash-1017: or-deepseek-v41-flash-1017 wins

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

claude-opus-5-5-low · BA · valid

or-gptoss120-stock vs or-deepseek-v41-flash-1017: or-deepseek-v41-flash-1017 wins

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

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · AB · valid

or-mistral-large-4 vs or-deepseek-v41-flash-1017: or-deepseek-v41-flash-1017 wins

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

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · BA · valid

qwen38_27b vs or-deepseek-v41-flash-1017: or-deepseek-v41-flash-1017 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 4)

claude-opus-5-5-low · BA · valid

or-deepseek-v41-flash-1017 vs glm47_flash: or-deepseek-v41-flash-1017 wins

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

claude-opus-5-5-low · BA · valid

qwen38_flash_next vs or-deepseek-v41-flash-1017: or-deepseek-v41-flash-1017 wins

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

claude-opus-5-5-low · AB · valid

qwen38_flash_next vs or-deepseek-v41-flash-1017: or-deepseek-v41-flash-1017 wins

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

claude-opus-5-5-low · BA · valid

or-mistral-large-4 vs or-deepseek-v41-flash-1017: or-mistral-large-4 wins

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

claude-opus-5-5-low · AB · valid

or-mistral-large-4 vs or-deepseek-v41-flash-1017: or-deepseek-v41-flash-1017 wins

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

or-deepseek-v41-flash-1017 vs glm47_flash: or-deepseek-v41-flash-1017 wins

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

claude-opus-5-5-low · AB · valid

qwen38_27b vs or-deepseek-v41-flash-1017: or-deepseek-v41-flash-1017 wins

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

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · BA · valid

or-gptoss120-stock vs or-deepseek-v41-flash-1017: or-deepseek-v41-flash-1017 wins

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

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · BA · valid

or-mistral-large-4 vs or-deepseek-v41-flash-1017: or-mistral-large-4 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 2)

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · AB · valid

qwen38_flash_next vs or-deepseek-v41-flash-1017: or-deepseek-v41-flash-1017 wins

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

claude-opus-5-5-low · BA · valid

qwen38_27b vs or-deepseek-v41-flash-1017: or-deepseek-v41-flash-1017 wins

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

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · BA · valid

or-deepseek-v41-flash-1017 vs qwen35_122b_stock: or-deepseek-v41-flash-1017 wins

attunement: A (margin 3)
authenticity: A (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-gptoss120-stock vs or-deepseek-v41-flash-1017: or-deepseek-v41-flash-1017 wins

attunement: B (margin 4)
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)