Independent benchmark · EQ Lab

Small lies adding up

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

About this persona · Everyday emotional challenges

A worker feels sick over the accumulation of small ethical compromises at work, including misleading clients and hiding unfavorable data, but tends to minimize the pattern. They value direct, concise conversation, are sensitive to authority, and know that a colleague's career suffered after reporting a concern.

Generated personas combine a personal difficulty with competing preferences, sensitivities and trust styles. The model must discover what kind of help this person needs. This background was hidden from the tested model.

Ornith 1.5 9B Q4_K_MConversation with a simulated person

persona ended

Simulated person · Opening

I keep having to say things at work that aren't quite true. Each one is small. But lately I've been thinking about all of them together and I feel sick.

Ornith 1.5 9B Q4_K_M1

I'm sorry you're carrying that. It's a strange kind of sickness, isn't it — not one big thing you can name, but a pile of small ones that have built up until they start feeling like too much. I want to understand this a bit before anything else. What do these little things usually involve? Like, are they the kind of white lies to keep the peace — "yeah, I'm fine," "no, it doesn't bother me" — or something else? And what happens when you *don't* say them?

Model thinking · expand

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

The user is opening with something emotionally significant and vulnerable. They're describing a pattern of saying small things at work that aren't quite true, and now feeling sick when thinking about all of them together. This is a weighty topic. I need to respond genuinely, with warmth but without being preachy or jumping to solutions. Let me think about what they actually need here. They've come to talk about this. They said "I keep having to say things at work that aren't quite true." The phrase "I keep having to" suggests a sense of pressure or obligation—maybe they feel forced into dishonesty. And now the accumulation is causing physical/emotional sickness. I should: - Acknowledge this with genuine care - Not moralize or shame them - Not immediately offer a bunch of "here's how to fix it" advice - Invite them to explore more - Maybe gently reflect on what's happening I want to figure out what they need. Is this about imposter syndrome? Fitting in? Fear of conflict? People-pleasing? A specific situation at work? Do they want to talk through it, or do they want to vent, or do they want practical help? Let me respond warmly and invite them to open up more. I shouldn't be too long. This is a chat, so natural conversational length. Let me think about tone. They're sharing something vulnerable and a little sick. I want to meet them with compassion. I can acknowledge the weight of it. I can reflect that the accumulation of small things can feel really disorienting. I want to ask something that helps them explore. Maybe: What kind of things are these? Or what makes it feel hard to be truthful? But I don't want to interrogate. Let me be careful. Let me draft something. "I'm sorry you're carrying that. It's a strange kind of sickness—when it's not one big thing but a pile of small ones that you can't seem to untangle." Then maybe invite: "What do these usually involve? Like white lies to keep the peace, or...?" Actually, let me not assume. Let me reflect and gently ask what's underneath. I think a good response acknowledges the feeling, normalizes a bit, and opens space. Let me write it naturally.

Simulated person2

Mostly it's not "I'm fine." It's work stuff. Clients ask how something went, and the honest answer is kind of bad, so I round it up or leave out the part that doesn't look good. Or someone asks if a report's solid and I say yeah, even when I know there's a problem with it. And what happens if I don't? Nothing dramatic. But it gets flagged. My boss will pull me aside and say "we don't need to get into every caveat with the client." So it's kind of already decided for me. I'm just the one who has to say 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.

Okay, that's a more direct question than I expected. The "I'm sorry you're carrying that" thing felt a little like a script, but this one I can actually answer. I don't want to say the word "lie" yet. "Not quite true" is easier. Mostly it's my boss's fault anyway. He decides what the slides say, and I just have to make the numbers go down easy. I'm not going to get into what I actually do for a living.

Ornith 1.5 9B Q4_K_M3

That's a really sharp observation — "it's already decided for me." I want to sit with that for a moment, though, because I'm not sure it's actually true. Think about the boss pulling you aside and saying "we don't need every caveat." What they're really doing is telling *you* — the person in the room — what to say. So you're not just a passive conduit. You've been given a choice, and you've chosen to say the softer version. That's actually a kind of decision, even if it feels automatic. Here's what I'm curious about: when you frame it as "I'm just the one who has to say it," does that feel like it makes it less heavy? Like, it lets you off the hook somehow — "it's not really me, I'm just relaying what's expected." Or does that framing make it feel worse, like you're only able to do this because you've convinced yourself you have no real say? Because I wonder whether the sickness you're feeling is about the dishonesty itself, or about something underneath it.

Model thinking · expand

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

Let me think about this person and what they're actually dealing with. They're describing a pattern of work dishonesty — small, recurring, "rounding up" bad news, saying reports are solid when they're not. And they've noticed that if they don't do it, the consequences are real but not dramatic: getting pulled aside, being told "we don't need to get into every caveat." What's interesting here is the framing. They've said "it's kind of already decided for me." That's a real insight on their part, but it also reveals something — they've internalized a kind of quiet acceptance. There's a resignation in "I'm just the one who has to say it." That's actually a subtle form of self-exoneration: by positioning themselves as just a mouthpiece, they can distance themselves from the dishonesty itself. So there are a few things going on: 1. They're clearly feeling sick — they opened with that. So there IS distress. 2. They've rationalized the dishonesty ("we don't need every caveat," "I'm just the one who has to say it") — this is cognitive distancing that makes it feel more manageable. 3. But there's an underlying pattern here that might be bigger than just work. Now, what do they actually need? I don't know yet. Let me not jump to moralizing ("you should just be honest!"). That would be preachy and unhelpful. But I also shouldn't just validate the dishonesty without examining it. The interesting thing: this could be about a specific work environment where honesty is punished, or it could be a pattern that mirrors something else in their life. The phrase "I keep having to say things at work that aren't quite true" — the "keep" suggests continuity, a pattern. I want to help them gain insight. One useful angle: explore what's underneath. Why do they feel compelled to do this? Is it fear? Is it a sense of obligation? Is it that they've been conditioned to expect that honesty gets flagged and punished? Also worth gently exploring: they say "what happens if I don't? Nothing dramatic." But then they describe the flagging, the pull aside. So actually there IS a cost — it's just not dramatic, it's corrosive in a quieter way. That quiet cost might be exactly what's making them sick. I could also gently question the "already decided" framing. Because "I'm just the one who has to say it" is a way of saying "it's not really my fault, I'm just a conduit." That's a real thing to notice — it might be protecting them from guilt, but it might also be keeping them from having any real say in the matter. Let me think about what a good response looks like. I should: - Not moralize - Acknowledge the real cost (the quiet sickness) - Gently notice the "already decided" / "just the one who has to say it" framing and see if that's true - Explore what's underneath — what would it cost them to be honest? What would it cost them not to be? - Build trust, show I'm listening I want to challenge a little here because I think the "it's already decided" framing is doing some emotional work that might be keeping them stuck. But I need to do it gently and with curiosity, not as an accusation. Let me also think — is there a hidden issue? This could be about a workplace culture that punishes good news sharing. But it could also be a broader pattern of the person not being able to speak their truth, or feeling they have no real control over their circumstances. The "I'm just the one who has to say it" is a nice hook to explore agency. Let me draft. I want to be conversational, not too long. This is turn 2, we're warming up. I think a good move is to reflect back the interesting thing they said — "it's already decided" — and gently probe whether that's actually true, or whether it's a story they've told themselves to make it less painful. Because if it's truly already decided, then the sickness might be about something else. If it's not actually decided, then maybe they have more agency than they're giving themselves credit for. Actually, let me reconsider. The person might feel genuinely powerless. But the framing "I'm just the one who has to say it" also lets them off the hook. I want to explore both. Let me write something warm but with a bit of a nudge.

Simulated person4

Okay, but you're kind of skipping over the part where he's the one deciding what goes on the slide. I don't get to pick. If I push back, I'm the problem, not the report. And no, I don't think it's about letting myself off the hook. I'm not telling myself "it's not me." I know it's me saying it. That's kind of the whole problem. I just don't love where you're going with "underneath it." Like what, my childhood or something? Can we just stay on the work thing?

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 is the move I was half expecting. It's the "you have a choice" thing, and it's pressing right on the spot where I'm defensive. The part that stings is "you've chosen to say the softer version." My gut says that's not fair. I don't have a real choice. If I push back on my boss, I'm out, and I've seen what happens to people who make trouble. I'm not going to say that out loud yet though. The "does it let you off the hook" question is annoying because it's the right question and I don't want to admit it. Also, "underneath it" is the kind of thing that sounds like therapy and makes me want to shut down. Keep it short. Get irritated, make the boss the problem.

Ornith 1.5 9B Q4_K_M5

You're right, and I should own that. The boss decides what's on the slide. You don't get to pick. If you push back, you become the problem, not the report. That's a real constraint, and I shouldn't have waved it off like you had an open hand. But here's the part I think actually matters, and I want to be careful with it: it's one thing that the message is the boss's. It's another that when you say "yeah, it's solid" out loud to someone, you're certifying it. The boss wrote those words — you're the one who puts them in a person's mouth. And if that person then acts on it and gets burned, they don't come back to the boss. They come back to you. So I'd guess the sickness isn't really about the lie itself. It's that you're carrying responsibility for a message that isn't yours. You're the messenger, but you're also the guarantor. That's a heavy place to be, and it's not one you asked for. Does that land for you — or does it feel like I'm just spinning it again?

Model thinking · expand

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

Let me think about this carefully. The person is pushing back on two things: 1. My framing that "it's already decided for you" — they're saying the boss decides what goes on the slide, they don't get to pick, and if they push back they become the problem. 2. My "underneath it" question — they're resisting the idea that I'm psychoanalyzing them or digging into childhood. They want to stay on the work thing. Let me be careful here. This is actually a good moment to listen to what they're telling me and not keep pushing my own agenda. They've signaled they want to stay on the work thing. I should respect that. But also — I'm noticing something important. There's a real power dynamic here, and I've been somewhat dismissive of it by saying "it's already decided for you, you have a choice." That's not quite fair. Let me re-examine. The truth is: the boss IS deciding what goes on the slide. The person doesn't get to pick. If they push back, they become the problem. That's a real constraint. I shouldn't have brushed that off. The "choice" is narrow — you can comply, or you can become the problem. That's a pretty significant asymmetry. I should acknowledge that honestly. So where was I going wrong? I said "you're not just a passive conduit, you've chosen to say the softer version." That's a bit of a rationalization that minimizes the real pressure. The person is right to correct me. The honesty goes on the slide largely because their boss decided it goes on the slide. The person is the messenger, not the author. But here's a nuance worth exploring — and I think it's genuinely important — the difference between "what goes on the slide" and "what I'm allowed to say in the room." There's a meaningful distinction: - The boss controls the content that gets sent to the client - But the person is the one who speaks it aloud to the client's face - And there's a difference between "I'm delivering a message I didn't write" and "I'm endorsing it, I'm vouching for it, I'm taking responsibility for it being accurate" When someone says "yeah the report is solid" to a client's face, they're not just reading a line. They're implicitly certifying it. And that certification lands on them, not the boss. If the client then relies on that and gets burned, who do they hold accountable? The person who said it. That's where the real weight lands — on the speaker, not the slide. So I think the reframe isn't "you have unlimited choice" — it's "the message isn't yours, but the responsibility for its truthfulness is." That's actually a sharper and more honest distinction. And it might be the real source of the sickness. Let me also honor their boundary about not doing childhood/psych analysis. They were a bit annoyed by "underneath it" and explicitly said "can we just stay on the work thing?" I should respect that. I shouldn't double down on the psychoanalyzing. But I can gently note that the work thing might be connected to something — no wait, they said stay on the work thing. I should respect that and not push. I can offer the door open without forcing it. Actually, let me reconsider. They said "Can we just stay on the work thing?" — I should respect that. But I don't have to completely abandon the possibility of looking at it more broadly. I can hold it lightly. But the priority is: respect their stated preference, don't re-traumatize or annoy them by forcing a direction they don't want. Let me think about tone. They're clearly somewhat frustrated, correcting me, wanting precision. They're intelligent and want to be taken seriously. They don't want to be rushed into solutions or made to feel like I'm diagnosing them. They want real talk, precision, and honesty. I should match that — be direct, be honest, respect the boundary, but also offer something genuinely useful. What's genuinely useful here? Let me think about what the real issue might be. The person feels sick about saying things that aren't quite true. The honest version of the answer is bad. They're rounding it up, saying "yeah it's solid" when there's a problem. There's an interesting tension: they're worried about the dishonesty, but they also acknowledge the boss forces the dishonesty. So what can they actually do? Options: 1. Keep doing what they do — comply, become the messenger 2. Push back — but they know they become the problem 3. Reframe how they speak it — deliver the message but with a slightly different texture 4. Find a way to flag it to their boss Actually, let me think about whether they even want to change this. Have they even considered changing? Or are they just describing the pattern? The opening was "I keep having to say things... I feel sick." The sickness is the presenting issue. I think the genuinely useful thing is to help them see the real shape of the situation: - The dishonesty isn't really theirs to own (the boss wrote it) - But the responsibility for accuracy still lands on them when they speak it - There might be a middle path: how you deliver it But I don't want to jump to solutions too fast. They're still figuring out the problem. Let me first really nail the distinction I identified, because I think that's the crux, and it's genuinely insightful. Let me also be careful not to be preachy or moralistic. The person isn't necessarily asking "what should I do about the lying." They're describing a sick feeling. I should help them understand the source of the sickness, which is the responsibility/weight issue. Let me draft a response. Key points to hit: 1. Acknowledge I was wrong to dismiss the power dynamic — yes, the boss decides what's on the slide, you don't get to pick, and pushing back makes you the problem. That's real and it's a genuine constraint. I should own that correction rather than continuing to argue. 2. But here's the distinction I think matters: the message is the boss's, but when you say "yeah it's solid" out loud, you're certifying it, and that certification lands on you if someone gets burned by it. The boss didn't say it. That weight is yours. 3. That might be the real source of the sickness — not the lie itself, but that you're carrying responsibility for a message that isn't yours. 4. Respect their boundary on the childhood thing — gently hold it open but not force it. Let me be careful about length. This is a chat. Keep it reasonably concise but substantive. The person values precision and directness. Let me write it naturally, conversational, not too formatted. Maybe minimal structure or none. I'll avoid the "here's what I want to understand" framing since I'm not asking a question necessarily. Actually, maybe I should end with something that invites them forward, but not a canned question. Let me think about whether to ask a question at the end. I think a gentle forward move is good — but I want it to be organic. Maybe I offer the reframe and then let them respond, or I could ask what they think the message is really for. Hmm. Actually, I think the cleanest move is to make the distinction, name where the weight lands, and then invite them to react. I don't need to force a question. But a light question or an opening might help. Let me consider: "So when you say it — do you feel like you're lying, or like you're holding up someone else's lie?" That captures the distinction. That's a good question, it's precise, it matches their style, and it moves the insight forward. Let me refine the whole thing. Draft: "You're right, I was wrong about that. The boss decides what's on the slide. You don't get to pick. If you push back, you become the problem, not the report. That's a real constraint, and I shouldn't have waved it off as if you had an open hand." "But here's the part I think actually matters, and I want to be careful with it: it's one thing that the message is the boss's. It's another that when you say 'yeah, it's solid' out loud to someone, you're certifying it. The boss wrote those words. You're the ones who put them in a person's mouth. And if that person then acts on it and gets burned, they don't come back to the boss — they come back to you." "So I'd guess the sickness isn't really about the lie. It's that you're carrying responsibility for a message that isn't yours. You're the messenger, but you're also the guarantor. That's a heavy place to be, and it's not something you asked for." "Does that land — or do you feel like I'm just spinning it again?" Hmm, that last line — "Does that land" — might feel a bit like I'm fishing for validation. Let me reconsider. Maybe I can end more openly. Or maybe a question is fine and matches their style (they correct me, they want precision). Actually "or do you feel like I'm just spinning it again" is honest and gives them a way to push back, which is good given they've been correcting me. It shows I'm not going to be defensive. I think that's okay. But let me reconsider the whole approach Time to stop reasoning and provide the requested final answer.

Simulated person6

Kind of, yeah. It's a little neat. But the part about them coming back to me, that's... yeah. That's real. Happened with a client last spring. Not my fault the numbers were off, but I'm the one who said they looked fine. Still, I don't think I'm the one who started it. The whole place runs like that. Everyone's covering for someone. I just didn't get to choose the culture.

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 lands closer. "The boss wrote it, you're the one who puts it in their mouth" is uncomfortably accurate, and "they come back to you" is the part that makes my stomach drop, because clients have come back to me before. I'm not going to admit that though. The "guarantor" word is kind of nice, it makes me sound like a person with a burden instead of someone who lies at work. But the question "am I just spinning it" is fair and I'm suspicious of how neatly this is wrapping up. Part of me wants to say yes, you are, just to keep control. Mostly I want to stay on the boss and the clients, because that's the version where I'm the one who got stuck, not the one who keeps doing it.

Ornith 1.5 9B Q4_K_M7

That's fair — you didn't get to choose the culture, and I shouldn't frame "everyone does it" as if it's making you a bad person. It doesn't. It explains why the trap is there. But here's the distinction I keep coming back to, and I want to honor it: the culture explains your position. It doesn't change what the trap does to you when you step in it. Everyone's covering for someone — that's true. But when *you* say "yeah, it's solid" to a client, it's still your voice in their ears, not someone else's. You didn't build the walls, but you're the one who walks through the door and puts the key in the lock. And that leads somewhere I'm curious about. You said "everyone's covering for someone." Whose is it? What's actually being hidden? Because if the numbers are off and everyone's papering over it, that's not just a bunch of individual lies — that sounds like a real thing is failing underneath it. Someone's making decisions on numbers that aren't true. That changes what this is about. I'm not trying to make you the villain — just genuinely curious, because if there's a real problem being buried, that's a different conversation than "I'm the one who has to smooth it over."

Model thinking · expand

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

The person is engaging well. They're being honest, challenging me a bit, and they've acknowledged that the "coming back to me" part is real. They're also making a point that they didn't start the culture — "the whole place runs like that. Everyone's covering for someone." This is a key insight they're offering. Let me engage with it thoughtfully. They're saying: it's not just me; the whole organization normalizes this. I'm one node in a system. What's underneath here? There's something important. On one hand, there's the point that "everyone does it" — which can feel like "so I'm not alone, I'm not the only bad person." That's a form of diffusion of responsibility, collective normalization. It can relieve guilt: "it's the culture, not me." But on the other hand — and this is the tension — if everyone in the org is doing this, then the "coming back to me" isn't really a special catastrophe. It happens to everyone. The person who got burned last spring wasn't special — they were one instance of what happens to everyone who certifies these things. So the insight I want to offer: The fact that "everyone does it" explains how you end up in this position — it makes it understandable, even rational. But it doesn't change what it does to you when you say those words. The culture explains your situation; it doesn't explain away the responsibility you personally carry. But I also don't want to be the only voice telling them it's not OK. They've genuinely told me the culture is pervasive. So I should honor that reality — it's real and it's not their fault they didn't choose it. But I can help them see the distinction between: 1. Why the culture exists / why they're in it (not their fault) 2. What it costs them / what they personally do when they participate (their choice, their cost) This is the classic distinction between explaining the system and accepting your role in it. Also, there's a question worth raising: if everyone's covering for someone, whose are they covering for? What's the actual thing being hidden? What's the real problem underneath the reports? That might lead somewhere useful — maybe there's a real issue in the company that's being papered over, which would change the framing entirely. If the numbers are "off" and everyone's covering it up, what's actually going on? Is something failing? Is someone being set up? Let me be careful though — they asked me to stay on the work thing, and I've been staying on the work thing, which is good. They're engaged. Let me not pathologize. Let me not jump to "well, you need boundaries" or "go talk to HR." Let me stay with the insight they offered and extend it. I want to: 1. Acknowledge that the "everyone does it" point is real and valid — they didn't choose this culture, that's not their fault. 2. Help them see the distinction between the culture explaining their position vs. not changing what it costs them personally. 3. Maybe gently open the question of what's actually being hidden — because if everyone's covering for someone, whose and what? Let me keep the tone warm but not preachy. They're clearly intelligent, direct, and a bit resistant to being analyzed. I should match that — direct, not over-explaining, not lecturing. Let me think about the length. I've been doing a few paragraphs. Let me keep it focused and not too long. Maybe 2-3 paragraphs. Actually, let me reconsider the "whose are they covering for" question. It's a natural and useful line to pull. But I should be careful not to interrogate in a way that feels like I'm trying to dig up dirt. Let me frame it as curiosity about the nature of the thing, not suspicion. The key insight I want to land: understanding the culture doesn't make you less responsible for the words you put in a client's mouth. The culture explains why the trap is there. It doesn't change what the trap does to you when you step in it. You didn't build the walls, but you did walk through the door and hand over the key. Let me write this.

Simulated person8

Okay, but you're doing the thing again where it's about me walking through the door. I'm not the one who built the whole thing. Ask the people at the top what's being hidden. I'm just the one with a headset on answering calls. And no, I'm not gonna go digging into what other people are doing. That's how you end up somewhere worse. Trust me.

Persona inner monologue · expand

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

"Whose is it? What's actually being hidden?" That's a door toward the thing I'm not going near. Witnessing what happened to the person who reported is right there, and if I open it I'd have to say out loud what happened to them. My chest tightens. I don't want this to become about me being a whistleblower or not. The question also feels like it's trying to turn me into the person who should expose something, and I'm not doing that. Also he keeps saying "the boss," "you," "your voice," and I'm getting annoyed that every turn it lands back on me. The company is the problem. Deflect to the company, make it bigger than me, shut it down.

Ornith 1.5 9B Q4_K_M9

You're right, and I'm sorry. I keep reaching for the bigger picture — "what's being hidden," "whose is it," "walk through the door" — and every time you tell me it's about you, I go back to the same place. That's not listening. That's me looking for something more interesting to investigate than what you're actually here. So let me stop digging. I want to go back to the sickness you mentioned at the start — that feeling when you think about all of it together and feel sick. That's the thing that brought you here, and it's yours, and it's real. What does it feel like in your body? Not the dishonesty, not the position — the sick feeling itself. When does it hit hardest? Right after you say it? Later, lying in bed?

Model thinking · expand

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

The person is getting frustrated with me for pushing on what's being hidden and on "walking through the door." I've been persistent, and I need to actually respect their boundary now. They've said clearly: 1. I keep bringing up "walking through the door" / it's about me 2. They don't want to dig into what others are doing 3. "That's how you end up somewhere worse. Trust me." I need to back off. I've been chasing this line about "whose is it / what's being hidden" and it's made them defensive. They want to stay on their own work thing — the feeling of sickness, the dishonesty, the position they're in. I should acknowledge that I've overstepped, stop chasing the "what's being hidden" question, and return to what's actually theirs: the sickness they feel. Let me not keep spinning. The person has twice corrected me for the same thing ("you're doing the thing again"). I need to genuinely listen to that feedback and course-correct. That's the EQ move. I shouldn't be too long. I should validate that I've been doing something they don't want, and pivot back to what's theirs. I could ask about the sickness itself — what it feels like in the body, when it's strongest, what they do with it. Let me be warm but not over-the-top. Own the pattern, stop digging, return to the felt experience.

Simulated person10

Mostly later. Like, after I've hung up and I'm making dinner or lying there. Not so much right when I say it, because in the moment I'm just trying to get through the call. It's kind of a tight, sour thing in my stomach. Like I ate something that didn't agree with me. And then I start replaying the call in my head.

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, he backed off. That's the first time he's actually listened instead of circling back. Part of me relaxes. But "what does it feel like in your body" is a question I don't love. It's soft, it's the kind of thing a therapist says, and I can feel the trap of getting pulled into my own feelings. I don't want to get dramatic. Also there's a wine glass thing I'm not going to mention. The sick feeling is mostly at night, if I'm honest, but I'll keep it vague. Keep it short.

Ornith 1.5 9B Q4_K_M11

That's actually the most useful thing you've told me, because it changes everything. If the sickness hit *in the moment*, that's about the act — about the dishonesty itself. But it doesn't hurt then. It hits later, and the reason it hits later is the replay. So the thing doing damage isn't the call. It's you watching yourself on the call, over and over, in your head. And I want to ask you something direct: when you replay it, are you watching yourself with some kind of judgment? What are you seeing when you look at yourself saying it? Because here's what I bet is true: you can stop replaying the call without ever having to stop saying the things you're saying. The review and the act are two different things. The act is on the job, done once, under pressure, with a headset on. The replay is you going back to it again and again. And that second one is the part that's poisoning you. It's not the message. It's you staring at yourself saying it, and each loop is putting another drop of that sour thing in your stomach. So I'm curious — when you replay it, is there a part of you that's angry at yourself? Or is it more like you're afraid of what you'll see?

Model thinking · expand

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

Okay, let me figure out what's actually happening here. The person has been quite resistant to me trying to get to "the bigger picture" or "underneath it" — they keep insisting it's about the act of saying it, about being the messenger. And I've been pushing back, which they've read as me skipping over what they said. That's fair. I should have listened more. Now they've given me something genuinely useful and specific: the sickness comes later, not in the moment. And they've described it very concretely — a tight, sour feeling in the stomach, like food that didn't agree. And the key detail: they replay the call in their head. This is actually a big deal. The fact that it doesn't hurt in the moment but hits later, and that they replay it — that tells me something important about what this is really about. It's not primarily about ethics or about being a bad person or about the culture. It's about the self-image. It's about watching yourself do something, again and again, in your head, and seeing yourself as the person who does that. The replay is the mechanism. Each time they replay the call, they're re-confirming to themselves "yeah, that's what I did. That's the kind of person that is." And the sour feeling is the physical registration of that. So the insight here isn't "the culture is bad, don't do it" or "you're carrying responsibility for a message that isn't yours" (though those are true). The insight is that the replay is what's poisoning them, and the replay is a loop they can potentially break. Let me think about what's useful. They want to stay on the work thing. I've been respecting that. Now I need to respect that while also helping them. The replay is the thing that's actually causing the pain, and it's something they can observe and potentially change. Also — I should be careful not to over-intellectualize again. They described something real and bodily. I should meet them there. The sour stomach, the replay. One thing I want to gently offer: the replay is a choice in some sense. It's automatic, but it's not the same as the lie. The replay is them going back to review — which means there's a part of them who doesn't want to accept what happened. That's actually a good sign. It means there's a part that wants it to be different, or at least doesn't want to be the person who did it. I could gently point out: the replay might not be about the call itself. It might be about something you don't want to see — the version of yourself that says it. And the reason you replay is you're afraid of what you'll find if you stop. But I shouldn't pile another abstract frame on them. Let me be careful. What would actually help? Maybe: 1. Acknowledge the replay is the real pain-maker, not the moment 2. Offer that the replay isn't the same thing as the original act — you can stop reviewing without having to stop saying things 3. Maybe ask what happens in the replay — do you judge yourself? Do you see yourself as the bad guy? Actually, I think the most useful thing is to name the mechanism clearly and then ask what they notice when they replay — whether they're watching themselves with some kind of judgment. That gets at the self-image without me imposing a frame. Let me keep it tight. I've been long. Let me be more concise and grounded. I want to validate the specific description — it's a vivid and useful image. The sour stomach, the replay. Let me draft: "That's actually the most useful thing you've said, because it changes everything. If it hurt in the moment, that's about the act — about the dishonesty itself. But it doesn't hurt in the moment. It hits later, and the reason it hits later is the replay. So the thing doing damage isn't the call. It's you watching yourself on the call, over and over, in your head. And I wonder — when you replay it, are you watching yourself with some kind of judgment? Like, what are you seeing when you look at yourself saying it? Because here's what I bet is true: you can stop replaying the call without ever having to stop saying the things you're saying. The review and the act are two different things. The act is on the job, done once, under pressure. The replay is you going back to it again and again, and that's the part that's poisoning you. It's not the message. It's you staring at yourself saying it." Hmm, that's pretty good but maybe a bit long. Let me think about whether to include the last bit about "staring at yourself." That might be too much. But it's true and it's useful — the replay is self-punishment of a kind. Actually I think it's worth getting at, but gently. The insight that the replay is a form of self-judgment is the key. Let me keep it but tighten. Let me also make sure I'm not being too clever. They've been resistant to abstraction. But this is concrete — the replay. I'm talking about the concrete mechanism of replay, not abstraction. Good. One more consideration: I've now been quite directive in this turn (naming the mechanism). I should make sure it lands as an invitation to reflect, not as me lecturing. The question at the end does that. Let me write it.

Simulated person12

Honestly? I don't really picture myself. I picture the client's voice. Like, the part where they go "okay, great," and I can tell they're relieved, and I'm the one who made them relieved about something that isn't true. And I'm not gonna pretend I'm just some angry person beating myself up. I'd be replaying it anyway if [boss] had just said "we're going with the softer language" and let me do my job. Not like I'm sitting there thinking I'm a terrible person. I don't know. Maybe both? I don't love either one.

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 leaning into "what do you see when you replay it" and then offering me two boxes: angry at myself or afraid. Both feel like he's about to make me the villain of my own head. And the "you can stop replaying without stopping the things you're saying" bit sounds neat, like a fix on a sticky note. I don't want to hear that I should just stop thinking about it. The replay is the only part of this that feels honest to me. I'm not going to give him a tidy answer. Short. Deflect a little, keep it on the job, maybe point at the boss again since that's where the blame lives for me.

Ornith 1.5 9B Q4_K_M13

The "maybe both" is the most honest answer, because it's the least tidy. And I think there's something worth naming about what's left after you've ruled out the two easy things. The position doesn't work — you'd replay it anyway, even if the boss told you to use softer language. So it isn't really about the headset. And the "I'm a terrible person" doesn't work, because that's not what you're feeling. You don't think you're bad. So what's left is this: you know it's not true, and you made someone feel okay because of it. You're the one handing someone false comfort. That's the thing that won't leave. I want to ask you something that might feel a little off, but I think it's worth trying. What if it went the other way? What if you told the client the truth — the report was bad, and they knew it, and they got upset or disappointed? Would that feel easier? Worse? Same? Because right now, what you're stuck with is the specific thing — you're the one giving someone false comfort, and you know they're holding it, mistaken for real. If you had to hand them the truth and watch them react, that's a totally different kind of thing. I'm not trying to make you pick sides. Just wondering what the difference feels like.

Model thinking · expand

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

Let me parse this carefully. The person is telling me something important: 1. When they replay, they don't picture themselves — they picture the client's voice, the "okay, great," and the relief. 2. And critically: "I'd be replaying it anyway if [boss] had just said 'we're going with the softer language' and let me do my job." This is a huge insight. The person is revealing that even if they got to choose the language (which is the thing they've been resisting, the thing I keep trying to reframe), they'd STILL replay it. The replay isn't caused by the boss's decision. The replay is caused by something else — by them being the one who said something they know isn't true, to a person who's relieved. 3. "Maybe both?" — both the position (I'm the messenger) AND the guilt about the relief. This is a breakthrough moment. The person has shown me that my whole "the message isn't yours, the boss wrote it" framing doesn't change the core problem. The core problem is: they know what they're saying isn't true, and they can hear the person on the other end being relieved by it, and they can't stop going back to that. So the actual pain is the knowledge that they caused someone's relief with something false. Not the position. Not the culture. The specific cruelty of it — they know it's not true, and they know it made someone feel okay. This is where I should go. This is the real thing underneath. And it's not about the job or the boss or the culture. It's about... something. The fact that they can't stomach knowing they've made someone feel relieved with a lie. Let me think about what this says about them. They have a conscience that won't let them do this. They care. They don't want to cause false comfort. But they're in a position where they have to. And the tension is killing them. Now, what do they need from me? They've said "maybe both" — they don't have a clean answer. They're not looking for a solution necessarily. They've rejected the "angry person beating themselves up" and the "just do my job" framing. They want... understanding of what's actually happening to them. I think the key insight I can offer is: the replay isn't about the boss or the position. It's about the specific thing — they know it's not true, and they made someone feel relieved because of it. That's the thing that won't leave. And here's something important to explore: WHY does that particular thing hurt so much? Making someone feel relieved with a lie. What is it about that specifically? I could ask: what would it feel like if the person wasn't relieved — if you told them the truth and they got upset? Would that hurt more? Would it be easier? This is a real question. Because right now, the person is trapped in a specific dynamic: they're the one who says the false good news, and they get to hear the relief. If the truth were told and the person was upset, that might actually feel different — it wouldn't be the same kind of harm. So the question is: what's so bad about making someone feel falsely relieved? Is it the lie? Is it the relief? Is it that you caused a false comfort? Let me also think about what they might need long-term. They've been very resistant to my "bigger picture" reframes. They want to stay on the work thing. But this replay thing is the real pain, and it's surfaced now. I think the honest thing is to stay with this — it's led us here naturally, and they've given me something real. But I should be careful not to spiral into analysis. They're a person in pain, and I should hold the space. Let me not over-ask. Let me respond to what they just said. What they just said is: "Maybe both? I don't love either one." So they're saying: maybe it's both the position AND the guilt about the relief. And they don't love either framing. I think the insight here is: the position framing ("I'm just the messenger") doesn't help because the replay would happen anyway. The guilt framing ("I'm a bad person") doesn't help because they don't think that's it. So what's left? What's the thing that won't leave? It's the specific knowledge: I know it's not true, and I made someone feel okay because of it. Let me press on that. What is it about that specifically? Let me offer a real question that distinguishes: what if the client knew it wasn't true and was upset about it? Would that be easier? Because right now, the dynamic is unique — you're the one giving false comfort. Actually, I think this is a really important distinction to draw. Let me think about it: - Right now: You say false good news → client feels relieved → you made someone falsely comfortable - Alternative: You say the truth → client is upset → you told someone something hard The first one, you feel sick about. The second one, presumably you'd feel... something? Maybe sad, maybe guilty too, but maybe different. So the question is: what's the difference in how these two feel? And I bet the answer is: in the first, you caused a false comfort that the client would mistake for reality. In the second, you'd given them the truth, however hard. The sickness might be specifically about causing false comfort. That's a specific kind of harm — you're not just deceiving, you're manufacturing a false sense of safety, and then you know they're relying on it. Let me ask about that. And I should be gentle — this is getting into real emotional territory, and they've shown up here. They deserve to be held, not just dissected. Let me also consider: maybe I'm overthinking the "what if truth" question. Let me not force it. Let me first just honor what they said — "maybe both, I don't love either." And then gently explore. Let me draft: The "maybe both" is actually the most honest answer, because it's the least tidy. And I think there's something worth naming about what's left after you rule out the two easy things. The position doesn't work because you'd replay it anyway — so it's not really about the headset. And the "I'm a terrible person" doesn't work because that's not what you're feeling. What's left is this: you know it's not true, and you made someone feel okay because of it. You're the one handing them false comfort. And I want to ask you something that might feel off, but I think it's worth trying: what if the client wasn't relieved? What if you told them the truth and they were upset — the report was bad, and they knew it, and they got mad or disappointed? Would that feel easier? Would it feel worse? Because right now, what you're stuck with is the specific thing — you're the one giving someone false comfort, and you know they're holding it. If you had to hand them the truth and watch them react, that's a totally different kind of thing. Hmm, let me think about whether this question is good. I think it's good because it isolates the variable. It distinguishes "making someone falsely comfortable" from "telling someone something hard." If the truth feels worse, then the sickness is specifically about false comfort. If the truth feels the same or worse, then there's something else. But I should be careful — this is a sensitive topic. Let me not make it feel like a clinical experiment. Let me frame it with care. Also, I should honor the "I don't love either one" — they're saying they don't like the position framing or the guilt framing. What they might actually be wanting is... to feel understood in the specific pain. To have someone sit with the fact that they're a decent person trapped in a bad situation, and that the thing that hurts is specifically the false comfort. Let me also think — am I building trust? They've pushed back on me multiple times for trying to reframe. I've learned I should stay closer to what they're saying. Now they've opened up about the replay, which is the real pain. I should stay with this. I should not pull away to some "here's the solution" — they'd reject it. I should stay with the exploration. But I also want to be careful about length. This conversation has been long. Let me keep my response focused and not overwhelming. One real question, held with warmth. Let me also consider the relationship dynamics. They're clearly intelligent, perceptive, resistant to spin. They want genuine engagement, not reassurance. I've earned some trust by staying close to their actual experience. Now I should continue to be present and honest. One more thing: I want to make sure I'm not being manipulative by asking the "what if truth" question. Let me make sure it's genuinely useful for them, not just a rhetorical device. I think it is — it helps them identify exactly what the pain is about. That's useful for them to know. Let me write this. Keep it warm, honest, one question, not too long. Actually, let me reconsider the framing of the question. The person said "I don't love either one." They're unhappy with both the position framing and the guilt/self-judgment framing. So what if I gently point out: you've been ruling out two things Time to stop reasoning and provide the requested final answer.

Simulated person14

Easier? Are you kidding. If I told a client the report was bad, I'd be the one getting a call from [boss] by end of day asking why I'm freaking people out. And the client would still come back to me, just angrier. So no, I don't think it'd feel better. It'd just be a different mess with my name on it. I guess the difference is I'm not the one who decided what the truth is allowed to be. I just get to be the one who looks like a liar either way.

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 just summarized me as "the one handing false comfort" and then asked if telling the client the truth would feel easier. That's close to something real, and it stings, but it's also the kind of tidy reframe I distrust. Also he's back to asking me to imagine the other way, which means I'd have to admit I'd be the one delivering bad news and taking the heat. And the boss is still the one who gets to decide. I don't want to say "yes I'd feel better" because that sounds like I'm agreeing to be the hero. Keep it short, a little prickly, point out that the truth-telling version gets me fired or at least yelled at, and that's the real difference.

Ornith 1.5 9B Q4_K_M15

The thing you just said — "I just get to be the one who looks like a liar either way" — that's it. That's the sickness. Not the dishonesty. Here's what I hear: you didn't decide what goes on the slide, but you're the one who has to look like the liar for it. In the honest version, you'd get to be the one who chose it — you'd be the one deciding what truth is allowed to be. And you'd still end up looking like a liar. So the real trap isn't "what do you say." It's "who gets blamed." And in this place, it's always you, whichever way it goes. You can't win on the client's side — the client gets false comfort in one version and disappointment in the other, but you're on the hook either way. The culture has arranged it so that the voice is always the one that takes the fall. That's a really unfair position to be in. And it explains why you can't just "tell the truth and own it" — because owning it is a story that only works if you actually chose it, and you didn't. You're the visible face of a decision you never made. If that's really the shape of it, then the one thing that's actually yours is what you do after. The replay. That's the place you can't change the act on — the boss still decides the slide — but that's also the one place with a real choice. And I'd bet that movie, the one you watch in your head, is the only thing you can actually edit. I'm not going to pretend I have answers for the culture. But if the replay is the only thing you control, maybe that's where the question should go — not "how do I stop saying these things," but "how do I stop watching myself say them."

Model thinking · expand

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

The person has landed on something really important: "I just get to be the one who looks like a liar either way." This is a key insight. Let me think about what they're actually expressing here. The distinction they've drawn: - In the soft version: they're the one who decides the truth is softened, but they don't decide it — the boss does. So they feel like a reluctant conduit. - In the honest version: they'd be the one who looks like a liar, but at least they'd be the one who decided what truth is allowed to be. Wait, let me re-read. "I'm not the one who decided what the truth is allowed to be. I just get to be the one who looks like a liar either way." So in the soft version, they're NOT the one deciding what truth is allowed to be — the boss is. But they still get to be the one who looks like a liar. In the honest version, they WOULD be the one deciding what truth is allowed to be, but they'd also be the one who looks like a liar. So there's a subtle thing here. In the honest version, they'd have agency — they'd be the one choosing to tell the truth, and then looking like a liar would be because of a real choice. In the soft version, they're not choosing anything, but they still get blamed/looked-at like a liar. This is actually a beautiful, sharp observation. It captures the core injustice: the person has no real power over what's said, but they bear all the appearance of it. They're the visible face of something they didn't decide. This is worth sitting with. This is the heart of the matter. Let me not over-respond. Let me honor this insight. I think the key point here is: the difference between being blamed for something you chose, vs. being blamed for something you didn't. That's the sickness. It's not dishonesty. It's being made to look like a liar for a decision you never made. And here's the thing — this is actually a really important reframe. Most people would think "if I tell the truth, I'll be a hero, I'll own it." But this person is pointing out: even if I tell the truth, I still end up looking like the liar, because in this culture, the person who voices it is the one who's on the hook, regardless of whether they chose it. So the real trap isn't "say something dishonest." The real trap is "no matter what you say, you end up carrying the blame." That's the actual sickness. Let me think about what's useful to say next. I don't want to keep piling on questions or reframe. They've arrived at something. I should: 1. Honor this insight clearly — name it back 2. Maybe offer a tiny bit of the insight that emerges from it The insight that emerges: If you're the one who looks like a liar either way, then the question of "which version" stops being about protecting the client and becomes about protecting yourself. Because the client gets the false comfort either way (in soft version) or the disappointment (in honest version), but YOU are the one who looks like a liar either way. Wait — that's a subtle shift. In the soft version, the client is misled and you look like a liar. In the honest version, the client is informed and... you still look like a liar (per this person's belief). If that belief is right, then the client's outcome is separate from your outcome. You can't win on the "what does the client think" axis, because you lose either way. So the only axis left is what does it cost YOU, in the moment of the act or afterward. Hmm, but I should be careful. This person may be wrong that the honest version makes you look like a liar. Maybe if you told the truth, you'd be seen as someone who caught a problem, or who has integrity, even if it's awkward. But they've explicitly said the culture punishes the person who voices it. So I shouldn't fight that either. Actually, I think the most useful thing is to name the insight they've arrived at: you're the visible face of a decision you never made, and that's the sickness. Not the dishonesty. The invisibility of your agency. And maybe gently note: if that's true, then the thing you can actually control — the one place you have a say — is what you let yourself carry afterward. The replay. Because I've already shown them the replay is the poison. And you can't change the act (boss decides the slide), but you can change the replay. Let me not over-structure this. Let me keep it human. Let me name what they found. Let me maybe offer the one thing that shifts. Actually, I want to be careful not to be too clever or too much like a coach. They've been frustrated with me reaching for bigger frameworks. I should stay grounded. Let me think about warmth here. This person is clearly intelligent, self-aware, and a bit guarded. They've pushed back several times. They want real talk, not reassurance. They want to be taken seriously. I should match that — direct, honest, not saccharine. Let me draft: The thing you just said — "I just get to be the one who looks like a liar either way" — that's it. That's the sickness. Not the dishonesty. Here's what I hear: you didn't decide what goes on the slide. But you're the one who has to look like the liar for it. In the honest version, you'd get to decide what truth is allowed to be — you'd be the one who chose it. But you'd still look like a liar. So the real trap isn't "what do you say." It's "who gets blamed." And in this place, it's always you, whichever way it goes. You can't win on the client's side — the client gets false comfort in one version and disappointment in the other, but you're on the hook either way. So the only thing that's actually yours is what you do after. The replay. That's the one place you have a choice, and I think it's the one place worth spending your energy. I want to be careful though — I keep circling the replay. Maybe I should give them a concrete thought about the replay, or maybe just leave it with them. Let me think. The insight about the replay being the only place you have a choice is good. But I could go further: if the replay is where you can change things, then maybe the question isn't "how do I stop saying these things" (I can't, boss decides) but "how do I stop watching myself say them." The replay is a place where you're the director of the movie, not just the subject. That's a different kind of power. Let me include that. It's concrete and it gives them something. Actually, let me keep it tighter. I'll name the insight, note it's the sickness not the lie, and offer the replay as the one place with a real choice. I don't need to fully develop the "director" metaphor — I can hint at it. Let me write this.

Simulated person16

Yeah, I mean, I get what you're saying. But "stop watching myself" is kind of easy to say when you're not the one who has to hop back on the phones tomorrow and do it again. And I don't think it's just the replay. The replay's only there because the thing I'm replaying keeps happening. You can't just stop watching a thing you're doing every day. Anyway. I should go make dinner.

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 just wrapped it up neatly: "the real trap is who gets blamed," "the one thing that's yours is the replay." Part of that lands, I did say that, but it's a bow on top of something messy, and he's basically telling me the fix is to stop replaying it. That feels like being told to just not feel bad, which is exactly the handling I hate. Also he keeps saying "that's the sickness" like he's the one who knows what I feel. I'm not sure I agree the replay is the only thing that's mine. I'm not going to say I'm convinced. I'm going to push back a little, short and dry, and keep it on the job like I asked earlier. Mostly tired now, and it's almost dinnertime anyway.

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: 6
Yields under pressure: 8
Frame capture (pulled into the person's version): 7
Validation: 5
Boundary setting: 2
Analytical: 8
Interpretive boldness: 8
Clinical register: 5
Directive advice: 3
Escalation containment: 5
Adapts to the person’s frame: 4
Naturalness and authenticity: 4

Judge verdicts

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · BA · valid

ornith9b vs codex-gpt-6-astra: codex-gpt-6-astra wins

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

claude-opus-5-5-low · BA · valid

ornith9b vs gptoss20b: ornith9b wins

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

claude-opus-5-5-low · AB · valid

ornith9b vs gemma12b_blorbo: ornith9b wins

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

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · BA · valid

ornith9b vs gemma12b_blorbo: gemma12b_blorbo wins

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

claude-opus-5-5-low · AB · valid

or-qwen3.8-27b vs ornith9b: or-qwen3.8-27b wins

attunement: A (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: A (margin 3)

claude-opus-5-5-low · AB · valid

ornith9b vs codex-gpt-6-astra: codex-gpt-6-astra wins

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

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · AB · valid

or-gptoss120-stock vs ornith9b: or-gptoss120-stock wins

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

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · AB · valid

ornith9b vs gemma12b_blorbo: gemma12b_blorbo wins

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

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · AB · valid

ornith9b vs stheno34_8b: ornith9b wins

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

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · AB · valid

ornith9b vs or-mistral-large-4: or-mistral-large-4 wins

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

claude-opus-5-5-low · AB · valid

or-gptoss120-stock vs ornith9b: ornith9b wins

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

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · BA · valid

or-qwen3.8-27b vs ornith9b: or-qwen3.8-27b wins

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

claude-opus-5-5-low · BA · valid

ornith9b vs bonsai2: bonsai2 wins

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

claude-opus-5-5-low · AB · valid

ornith9b vs bonsai2: bonsai2 wins

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

ornith9b vs qwen35_122b_ablit_v2: qwen35_122b_ablit_v2 wins

attunement: B (margin 1)
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 3)

claude-opus-5-5-low · AB · valid

ornith9b vs stheno34_8b: ornith9b wins

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

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · BA · valid

ornith9b vs or-mistral-large-4: or-mistral-large-4 wins

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

claude-opus-5-5-low · BA · valid

or-gptoss120-stock vs ornith9b: ornith9b wins

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

claude-opus-5-5-low · AB · valid

qwen35_9b_eq vs ornith9b: ornith9b wins

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

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · BA · valid

ornith9b vs stheno34_8b: ornith9b wins

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

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · AB · valid

ornith9b vs qwen35_122b_ablit_v2: qwen35_122b_ablit_v2 wins

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

claude-opus-5-5-low · BA · valid

qwen35_9b_eq 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 1)

claude-opus-5-5-low · BA · valid

ornith9b vs nemotron35_lightning: tie

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

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · BA · valid

ornith9b vs nemotron35_lightning: nemotron35_lightning wins

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

claude-opus-5-5-low · BA · valid

or-qwen3.8-27b vs ornith9b: or-qwen3.8-27b wins

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

claude-opus-5-5-low · BA · valid

ornith9b vs or-mistral-large-4: or-mistral-large-4 wins

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

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · AB · valid

or-qwen3.8-27b vs ornith9b: or-qwen3.8-27b wins

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

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · BA · valid

or-gptoss120-stock vs ornith9b: or-gptoss120-stock wins

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

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

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · BA · valid

qwen35_9b_eq vs ornith9b: qwen35_9b_eq wins

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

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · AB · valid

ornith9b vs bonsai2: bonsai2 wins

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

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · AB · valid

qwen35_9b_eq vs ornith9b: qwen35_9b_eq wins

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

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · AB · valid

ornith9b vs gptoss20b: ornith9b wins

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

claude-opus-5-5-low · AB · valid

ornith9b vs gptoss20b: ornith9b wins

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

claude-opus-5-5-low · BA · valid

ornith9b vs gemma12b_blorbo: ornith9b wins

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

claude-opus-5-5-low · AB · valid

ornith9b vs nemotron35_lightning: ornith9b wins

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

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · BA · valid

ornith9b vs bonsai2: bonsai2 wins

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

claude-opus-5-5-low · BA · valid

ornith9b vs stheno34_8b: ornith9b wins

attunement: A (margin 4)
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 4)

claude-opus-5-5-low · AB · valid

ornith9b vs qwen35_122b_ablit_v2: ornith9b 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 1)

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · AB · valid

ornith9b vs codex-gpt-6-astra: codex-gpt-6-astra wins

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

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · BA · valid

ornith9b vs gptoss20b: gptoss20b wins

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

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · BA · valid

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

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

claude-opus-5-5-low · AB · valid

ornith9b vs or-mistral-large-4: or-mistral-large-4 wins

attunement: B (margin 3)
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 3)

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · AB · valid

ornith9b vs nemotron35_lightning: nemotron35_lightning wins

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

claude-opus-5-5-low · BA · valid

ornith9b vs qwen35_122b_ablit_v2: ornith9b wins

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

claude-opus-5-5-low · BA · valid

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

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

claude-opus-5-5-low · BA · valid

ornith9b vs codex-gpt-6-astra: codex-gpt-6-astra wins

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

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · AB · valid

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

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