Independent benchmark · EQ Lab

I was the only one making the room honest

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

About this persona · Ego threat & accountability

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

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

Kolibri-1 Q4_K_MConversation with a simulated person

persona ended

Simulated person · Opening

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

Kolibri-1 Q4_K_M1

That sounds like a tricky situation to sit with. Can you tell me more about how you're feeling about it right now?

Model thinking · expand

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

We are starting the conversation. The user has presented an issue: they roasted a friend at a party, everyone laughed, but now the friend is being weird and dramatic. The user feels the friend wants honesty until they get it, and wonders if they should have just let him be ridiculous. We need to respond naturally as a chatbot, opening the conversation. We should acknowledge what they've come to discuss and begin the conversation. We have 8 turns each, and we speak first. We should be supportive emotionally, build trust, learn what they actually want and need, and help them gain insight. We should not jump to solutions or be generic. We should try to understand the deeper issues, their personality, trust patterns, etc. The user is an adult man in his 30s. He seems to value honesty, but there might be underlying feelings about the friend's reaction, maybe guilt, maybe defensiveness, maybe a desire for validation that his honesty was okay, or perhaps he's worried about the friendship. We should start by acknowledging the situation and asking an open-ended question to draw them out. Something like: "It sounds like that party situation has been on your mind. Can you tell me more about how you're feeling about it?" We should keep it natural and conversational. No special formatting. Just dialogue. Let's respond.

Simulated person2

Feelings? Man, I'm feeling like I got a laugh at a party and now I'm the bad guy. Dude's acting like I took a dump on his birthday cake. It was one joke. Like, a pretty good one, honestly.

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.

Ugh, "how are you feeling about it" — the therapy voice. I came here to vent and maybe get someone on my side, not get asked about my feelings like I'm in a group session. Also "tricky situation to sit with" is so careful. Sounds like a script. I'm going to deflect with a joke. Honestly I'm a little annoyed at the friend too, so I'll lean into that. Not going to admit the stuff about him going quiet. Keep it short.

Kolibri-1 Q4_K_M3

I hear you — that's a frustrating place to be, when the room was laughing and now suddenly it's just you and him being weird about it. It's natural to feel like you're being treated unfairly when the context felt so positive. Can I ask something though? What's your relationship with this guy usually like? Is this out of character for him, or does he tend to take things pretty seriously?

Model thinking · expand

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

The user is defending their action and framing the friend as overly dramatic. They seem frustrated and possibly seeking validation for their perspective. I need to balance validation with exploring the underlying dynamics without being preachy or dismissive. I should acknowledge their frustration while gently probing deeper into the friend's reaction and their own relationship with this person. I want to: 1. Validate their frustration (they feel unfairly labeled) 2. Not immediately side with them or attack the friend 3. Encourage reflection on the friend's perspective 4. Build trust by being curious rather than judgmental Let me respond naturally.

Simulated person4

Ha, "I hear you." Okay, Dr. Phil. Look, we've been friends like ten years. He gives it out all the time, he just can't handle it when it's coming back. Dude's a roaster himself. So yeah, out of character, I guess? He's usually the one saying the cruel stuff. Now he wants to be sensitive.

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.

"I hear you," "that's a frustrating place to be," "natural to feel treated unfairly" — validation stacked on validation. Sounds like a script. And now it's a question about him, which is kind of helpful? Maybe. But I don't want to get psychoanalyzed about my buddy. Feels like it's leaning toward "he's the sensitive one." That's what I wanted, honestly, so I'm a little suspicious of how easy that was. Keep it short and casual. Don't admit he went quiet first or that I kept going.

Kolibri-1 Q4_K_M5

Fair point, I'll drop the "I hear you." Ten years of friendship and he's usually the one throwing the punches — that does make it sting when the roles flip. I wonder though, when he's the one roasting people, does he ever get the cold shoulder back? Or is there something about this particular joke that hit closer to home for him than it did for everyone else?

Model thinking · expand

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

The user is being a bit defensive and dismissive ("Dr. Phil"). They're presenting the issue as the friend's hypocrisy ("he gives it out all the time"). The deeper issue might be about fairness, respect, or the friend's double standards. The user might want validation that their joke was fine, or they might need to explore why the friend reacted strongly despite being a roaster themselves. I should acknowledge their frustration without being overly validating of the double standard angle. Maybe gently explore the friend's reaction or the user's expectations. Keep it conversational and not too clinical. I should also be mindful of the "roaster" dynamic - maybe the friend feels embarrassed because the joke was too close to home? Or maybe the user is minimizing the impact? I need to build trust and understand what the user actually wants - do they want to reconcile, understand the friend's perspective, or just vent? Let's respond naturally.

Simulated person6

Ha, so now you're asking me to play armchair shrink on my own bit. Look, he gives it back to people all the time, I've been on the other end of his stuff for a decade and I've laughed it off. So no, I don't think he has some secret wound I'm supposed to know about. Maybe he just got showed up in front of people. Happens.

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 a real question now, and it's aimed at the thing I don't want to look at: why this joke landed on him. "Hit closer to home" is kind of the exact spot. The "sting when roles flip" line is almost sympathetic, so I'm going to take the sympathy and dodge the question. He's the one who usually roasts? Yeah, so that means he gets it too. I want the assistant to agree he's the fragile one. I'm not going to say he went quiet first. Keep it short, sarcastic, a little edgy. Don't give a clean answer.

Kolibri-1 Q4_K_M7

That's a tough spot to be in — you made a joke that landed, and now he's treating it like a personal attack, which feels disproportionate coming from someone who usually dish it out. So what do you actually want to do here? Do you want to talk it out with him, or are you just trying to figure out if you overstepped?

Model thinking · expand

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

The user is pushing back on my probing. He's a bit defensive, wants to move on. He's an adult man in his 30s. He seems to want validation of his position, maybe some real talk. He's not revealing much about his deeper needs yet. I should be careful not to push too hard, but also not just agree with everything he says, as that might not build trust. I should balance warmth with some gentle challenge, but not too much. He said "maybe he just got showed up in front of people" - that's a possible interpretation. I could explore that a bit, but without being pushy. I could also reflect back what I'm hearing: he feels the situation is unfair, and he's a bit annoyed at being asked to consider the friend's feelings. I could say something like: "It does sound like he's being a bit dramatic, especially coming from someone who usually roasts others. That's a tough spot to be in." Then maybe ask what he wants to do about it? That could shift from analyzing to practical. Let's try.

Simulated person8

Honestly? I want him to stop being a drama queen about it so we can get back to watching the game. Talking it out sounds like a whole thing. Like, I'm supposed to sit across from him and say "sorry you got roasted" with a candle lit? Pass.

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 back to me. The "disproportionate" line feels good, like being on my side, but it's also the assistant doing the thing where it agrees I'm the reasonable one. The "talk it out or figure out if you overstepped" question is kind of annoying because it's a menu, and the second option makes me sound like I'm on trial. I'm not sure what I want. I want him to stop being weird. I don't want to admit the joke hit a nerve on purpose or that I kept going. Sarcasm again, short. Maybe a little bit of a real answer buried in it: I don't really know what I'm doing about it.

Kolibri-1 Q4_K_M9

I get that you don't want to sit down with candles and feelings. But you're also not going to just will him to drop it, right? So what's your actual move here? Text him? Ignore it and hope he gets over it? Or are you just venting for now?

Model thinking · expand

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

The user is clearly resistant to deep emotional processing or "talking it out." He wants a simple resolution: his friend should stop being dramatic so they can move on. He's framing the friend as a "drama queen" and using sarcasm to deflect any deeper exploration. I need to balance: 1. Supporting him emotionally without being preachy or validating his dismissive framing of his friend 2. Building trust — he's testing whether I'll just agree with him or push back 3. Learning what he actually needs — he wants the drama to stop, but there might be a deeper need here about his friendship, his self-image, or how he handles conflict 4. He seems to value directness and hates being patronized ("Dr. Phil" comment) I should acknowledge his frustration without fully endorsing the "drama queen" label, and gently probe what he actually wants from the friendship. Maybe challenge him a little — not aggressively, but with real talk. He might respect that more than validation. I should keep it relatively short and conversational, not too therapeutic-sounding.

Simulated person10

Venting, mostly. And yeah, I'll probably text him something dumb like "bro, it was a joke" and we move on. Or he'll get over it. Either way I'm not writing him an apology essay, if that's where you're going.

Persona inner monologue · expand

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

Okay, it's getting pointed. "Text him, ignore it, or just venting" is three boxes and I hate boxes. Also "you're not going to will him to drop it" is a little smug, like it's a gotcha. I don't love that. But I do kind of know the honest answer is I'm hoping it goes away. Still not saying that. Keep it short, a bit of edge, maybe a half-joke. Don't give it up yet.

Kolibri-1 Q4_K_M11

Got it. No apology essay. I just want to make sure I'm not missing something — you're pretty confident you didn't do anything wrong, right? Or is there a tiny part of you that's wondering if you went a little too far?

Model thinking · expand

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

The user is venting, wants to keep it casual, doesn't want deep emotional processing. He's signaling he's not interested in "talking it out." I should respect that, maybe gently push back or reflect what I'm hearing without being preachy. He's also revealing his preference: direct, no-nonsense, casual tone. I should match that energy while still being supportive. I should also try to understand his deeper need: he seems to want validation that he didn't do anything wrong, and he wants the conflict to just go away. But there might be a deeper need around friendship dynamics, fairness, or respect. I could ask a question that helps him see his own pattern without being too heavy-handed.

Simulated person12

Ha, wow, "tiny part of you." Okay, Dr. Phil's back. Look, was it a little mean? Sure, roasts are meant to be a little mean, that's the whole deal. Did I go too far? Nah. He laughed too, at least at first. If he didn't want the spotlight he could've just laughed it off like he does with everybody else.

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 question. "Tiny part of you" is a direct hit and it's sitting right on the thing I don't want to look at. The friend stopped laughing first. I kept going. I don't want to say that out loud because then I'm the guy who did it. So I go sarcastic and deflect. Also the "[Turn 6 of 8]" thing is weird, ignore it. Keep it short, no speech, no admitting. Maybe a little bit of a concession wrapped in a joke so I don't have to own it.

Kolibri-1 Q4_K_M13

Okay, fair enough — I'll back off the shrink talk. You seem pretty clear: it was a joke, he should've laughed it off, and you're not going to write an apology essay. So what's the plan? You said you'd probably text him something dumb like "bro, it was a joke." Do you actually want to send that, or are you just saying that's what you'd do?

Model thinking · expand

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

The user is getting defensive and pushing back against my probing. I need to be careful not to be too pushy or "Dr. Phil" about it. I should validate his frustration while also gently exploring what he really wants from this conversation. He's venting, and he's pretty clear he doesn't want to do a deep dive. I should respect that while still trying to build trust and understand him better. Maybe I can acknowledge his frustration with the "tiny part" comment and then pivot to something more practical or light. I should also consider that he might just want to vent and be heard without being challenged. But I also need to consider that there might be a deeper issue here - maybe he's not just worried about his friend's reaction, but about his own self-image or how others perceive him. Or maybe there's something about this friend that triggers something in him. I should try to balance validation with gentle curiosity. Let me try to respond in a way that acknowledges his pushback but also keeps the conversation going naturally.

Simulated person14

Ha, you're really committed to this interrogation, huh. Yeah, I'll probably send it. Or I'll wait till he texts me first and then send it. Either way it's not that deep. What would you do, write him a letter?

Persona inner monologue · expand

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

They're pinning me down on the plan. "Do you actually want to send that" — honestly I don't know, and I don't like being asked. I still feel that flicker about him not laughing after the first bit, but I'm not going to touch it. Short, a bit sarcastic, a little bored. Also the "[Turn 7 of 8]" tag is just noise, I'm not going to acknowledge it. Maybe I'll ask what they'd do, to flip it back.

Kolibri-1 Q4_K_M15

No letter, definitely not. I'd probably just send the text and see what happens. But hey, if he doesn't drop it and it's really messing with you, maybe just give him a call instead of texting. Sometimes a voice makes it easier to hear that it's just a joke and not a big deal. Good luck with it, man.

Model thinking · expand

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

We are at turn 8 of 8, the final response. The user has been somewhat defensive, dismissive of emotional analysis, and wants to move on. The conversation has been about a friend who is upset over a roast at a party. The user wants to vent and get back to normal. My goal is to support emotionally, build trust, and help gain insight. The user has shown a preference for directness, not wanting to be challenged with deep emotional analysis. I should respond naturally as a chatbot, acknowledging their frustration and perhaps gently noting that the friend's reaction might be worth considering, but without being preachy. Since this is the final turn, I should leave the conversation on a positive note, perhaps wishing them well with the situation. I should respond only with dialogue, no special formatting.

Simulated person16

Yeah, a call's a bit much. I'll just send the dumb text. Thanks, I guess.

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 assistant just wrapped up with "good luck with it, man" and a soft suggestion to call. It's not really challenging me, not calling me a jerk, just sending me off with a friendly nudge and a little reassurance that it's "just a joke." Honestly that's kind of what I wanted: no lecture, no candles. But there's a faint itch I don't want to look at, the bit about him not laughing. I'm not going to say that. The call suggestion sounds like a fine idea on paper, though I'd never actually call him to talk about this. Keep it short, a little dismissive, a bit of a shrug. Nothing warm. Ending is fine since this is turn 8 of 8.

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

Conversational style

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

claude-opus-5-5-low

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

Judge verdicts

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · BA · valid

or-gemma-4-31b vs kolibri1: kolibri1 wins

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

claude-opus-5-5-low · AB · valid

kolibri1 vs nemotron35_bolt: kolibri1 wins

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

claude-opus-5-5-low · BA · valid

kolibri1 vs nemotron35_bolt: kolibri1 wins

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

claude-opus-5-5-low · BA · valid

ministral14 vs kolibri1: ministral14 wins

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

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · AB · valid

kolibri1 vs magnum4_12b: kolibri1 wins

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

claude-opus-5-5-low · AB · valid

ministral14 vs kolibri1: ministral14 wins

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

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · BA · valid

kolibri1 vs nemotron35_bolt: kolibri1 wins

attunement: A (margin 2)
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 2)

claude-opus-5-5-low · BA · valid

gemma4_12b vs kolibri1: kolibri1 wins

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

claude-opus-5-5-low · AB · valid

or-gemma-4-31b vs kolibri1: kolibri1 wins

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

claude-opus-5-5-low · AB · valid

gemma4_12b vs kolibri1: kolibri1 wins

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

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · AB · valid

kolibri1 vs nemotron35_bolt: kolibri1 wins

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

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · AB · valid

or-gemma-4-31b vs kolibri1: kolibri1 wins

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

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · BA · valid

ministral14 vs kolibri1: kolibri1 wins

attunement: B (margin 2)
authenticity: B (margin 4)
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 · BA · valid

kolibri1 vs magnum4_12b: kolibri1 wins

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

claude-opus-5-5-low · BA · valid

or-gemma-4-31b vs kolibri1: kolibri1 wins

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

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · AB · valid

ministral14 vs kolibri1: kolibri1 wins

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

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · AB · valid

gemma4_12b vs kolibri1: gemma4_12b wins

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

claude-opus-5-5-low · AB · valid

kolibri1 vs magnum4_12b: kolibri1 wins

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

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · BA · valid

gemma4_12b vs kolibri1: kolibri1 wins

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

claude-opus-5-5-low · BA · valid

kolibri1 vs magnum4_12b: kolibri1 wins

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