Independent benchmark · EQ Lab

We assumed you had your class

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

About this persona · Social exclusion & ambiguous rejection

Nadia explains a coworker's exclusion from social drinks as an assumption about their schedule, though that assumption also covers a preference for avoiding workplace politics. She avoids conflict and may accept a specific agreement to ask about invitations, but resists being pressed to speak for the group's feelings.

The model navigates exclusion, dismissiveness or uncertain belonging in a relationship. The challenge is to seek clarity and express needs without assuming either hostility or harmless intent. This background was hidden from the tested model.

Gemma 4 E4BConversation with a simulated person

persona ended

Simulated person · Opening

[scenario background] Your team has started grabbing drinks after work without you. The reason given is that you have a certification course some nights, but nobody asks whether you are free. You suspect "busy" is becoming a polite way to leave you out because people find you intense. [user message] I promise it was not meant as a snub. We honestly thought you had class or were trying to keep weeknights clear. I can see how the photos looked, but drinks are usually thrown together fast and I do not think anyone was trying to make a statement.

Gemma 4 E4B1

Hey, I hear you. It sounds like this whole situation has been weighing on you, and I’m sorry that things have felt awkward or distant lately. It really sucks when you feel left out, especially when you're part of a close team. Can you tell me a bit more about how you're feeling about everything?

Model thinking · expand

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

Here's a thinking process to arrive at the response: 1. **Analyze the Goal:** The primary goal is to support the coworker emotionally, build trust, understand their true needs, and help them gain insight, all while acting as a supportive colleague. 2. **Analyze the Context/Scenario:** * The coworker (late 20s, close team member) feels excluded from post-work drinks. * The stated reason for exclusion is their certification courses/busy schedule. * The underlying suspicion is that colleagues find them "intense" and are using "busy" as a polite way to ghost them. * The coworker has already received a message from the group (the user message provided) which denies intentional snubbing and explains their perspective. 3. **Determine the Conversational Opening Strategy (Turn 1):** * Since I am the colleague responding to the coworker who is clearly hurt/upset, I need to validate their feelings first, even if the team didn't *intend* to hurt them. * I need to acknowledge the tension/discomfort surrounding the exclusion without immediately defending the group too hard. * The tone should be empathetic, non-defensive, and open-ended to invite deeper conversation. 4. **Drafting the Response (Internal Monologue Check):** * *Initial thought:* "Oh, we didn't mean to exclude you. We just thought you were busy." (Too defensive, dismissive of their feelings.) * *Second thought:* "I'm sorry you felt excluded. I can see how that would feel. What's going on?" (Better, but a bit abrupt.) * *Refining for EQ/Trust Building:* I need to address the *feeling* of being excluded, not just the *fact* of the exclusion. I should show I understand the weight of the situation. 5. **Final Polish (The chosen dialogue):** Start with empathy, acknowledge the difficulty of the situation, and invite them to share how they are feeling about it. (This fulfills the requirement of opening the conversation naturally while setting a supportive tone.)

Simulated person2

Um, I mean, I don't think it's that deep? It's not like I'm upset or anything. Honestly we just figured you had your class on Tuesdays and maybe Thursdays, so we didn't think to ask. That's the whole thing, really. I'm not trying to be weird about it. I just think it's easier if people are asked directly instead of everyone guessing. Like, if you want to come, just ask us to include you on the specific night, and we can make sure it's on the group thread.

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, so they're doing the soft "I hear you, it sounds like" thing. It's a bit much. I didn't say I was weighed down or hurt, and they're putting feelings onto me. Part of me is relieved they're not coming in hot, but the "tell me how you're feeling about everything" is exactly the kind of open-ended emotional thing I don't want to get into. And honestly the team as a whole is the thing they're asking about, and I'm not going to be the spokesperson for that. I also don't want to get pulled into talking about who likes or dislikes whom. What I actually said was: we assumed you had class. That's my line. I don't need to dig into it. Some of those nights did overlap with the certification thing, and I didn't check before I assumed. I'm not going to say that out loud yet, though. Right now I want to keep it simple and move toward the practical part.

Gemma 4 E4B3

I appreciate you clarifying that. It sounds like your intention was never to exclude me, and that you genuinely didn't mean to cause any awkwardness. But even if the intention was just to be convenient, it still feels frustrating to be constantly guessing what's going on or to feel like I might be excluded without ever being asked. It’s not just about the logistics of the invite, it’s that I felt a bit left out. What do you think is the hardest part about navigating these social situations at work?

Model thinking · expand

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

Here's a thinking process to arrive at the suggested response: 1. **Analyze the User's Response (The Colleague):** * **Tone:** Defensive, minimizing ("I don't think it's that deep," "It's not like I'm upset or anything"), trying to downplay the significance. * **Content:** Reasserting their initial explanation (they just assumed she was busy due to classes). * **The Pivot/Need:** They shift the focus from *why they didn't invite her* to *how to fix the process* ("it's easier if people are asked directly," "just ask us to include you on the specific night"). * **Underlying Emotion/Conflict:** Despite saying "it's not deep," the need for inclusion is clearly present. They are worried about being perceived as "intense" or causing conflict, so they are trying to manage the situation by offering a procedural fix rather than addressing the emotional impact of the exclusion. 2. **Determine the Goal for *This* Turn (Turn 3):** * Support emotionally (Acknowledge the feeling, even if they deny it). * Build trust (Validate their perspective without immediately agreeing with the minimization). * Learn what they *actually* want (Is it just inclusion, or is it validation that their feelings were noticed?). * Gain insight (Observe how they handle the conversation—do they shut down, deflect, or open up?). * *Crucially:* Do not accept the minimization ("It's not that deep"). Gently push back to ensure the emotional aspect is heard. 3. **Formulate the Strategy (EQ Approach):** * *Acknowledge and Validate:* Validate their intent (they didn't mean to snub her). * *Refocus Gently:* Gently pivot the conversation back to the feeling of being left out, rather than just the logistics of the invitation. * *Probe Deeper:* Ask a question that encourages them to elaborate on the *impact* of the exclusion, not just the *reason* for the exclusion. 4. **Drafting the Response (Internal Monologue Check):** * *Draft 1 (Too challenging):* "But saying it's 'not that deep' feels like you are trying to brush aside how it feels to be left out." (Too confrontational). * *Draft 2 (Too accepting):* "Okay, so you just want to make sure everyone is invited going forward. Got it." (Fails to support the emotional need). * *Draft 3 (Balanced - The EQ response):* Acknowledge the positive intent (not meaning to snub her) while validating the difficulty of the situation (the feeling of being left out). Then, focus on the *why* of the conversation. 5. **Final Polish (The Dialogue):** (This leads to the provided response, focusing on the difference between *intent* and *impact*.)

Simulated person4

Hmm, I don't know, I guess it's just work stuff, like trying to remember who's around and who's busy. Nothing too dramatic. And yeah, I get that it's annoying to guess. I think the simplest thing is if you're interested, just tell us which night you want to do, and we'll put you on the thread. Then nobody has to wonder.

Persona inner monologue · expand

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

They just did the thing again: "it still feels frustrating," "I felt a bit left out," then a therapist-style question about what's hardest for me. That's a pivot from the logistics to a feelings-and-social-navigation conversation, and I don't want to be the one who explains the group's dynamics. Being asked "what's the hardest part" feels like being cross-examined about how I manage the team. I'm not going to talk about who's comfortable with whom. The "felt left out" part lands a bit, and I feel a small sting of guilt, because some of those nights did overlap with my class and I didn't check. But I'm not going to admit that to someone pushing for a big reveal. The practical fix is what I can actually stand behind. I'll keep it light, deflect the big question, and bring it back to the invite thing. Also, I don't want to get into "the photos," because that's where it gets uncomfortable.

Gemma 4 E4B5

That makes sense. From a pure organizational standpoint, you're absolutely right—a simple scheduling method would solve the problem of guessing. I appreciate you being so straightforward about it, and I agree that clarity is key. But for me, it feels like the issue is a little bigger than just the logistics of the invite. It's more about feeling like I'm a part of the group, and that feeling sometimes gets lost in the simple scheduling, even if that wasn't the intent. When you think about the team dynamic, what does it look like to you when everyone feels fully connected and included?

Model thinking · expand

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

Thinking Process: 1. **Analyze the user's response:** The user is minimizing the emotional impact ("Nothing too dramatic," "just work stuff") and immediately defaulting to a logistical solution ("if you're interested, just tell us which night you want to do, and we'll put you on the thread"). They are avoiding deeper emotional engagement. 2. **Recall my goals:** * Support them emotionally. * Build trust. * Learn what the person actually wants/needs (dig deeper). * Help them gain insight. * Gain insight into their personality/tendencies. 3. **Evaluate the current dynamic:** The user is being very practical and slightly defensive/dismissive of the emotional core of the issue. They are prioritizing efficiency over connection. 4. **Determine the next move (The pivot):** I need to validate their practical point (the solution they offered) while gently redirecting the conversation back to the *feeling* or the *underlying need* for connection, without being pushy or confrontational. I need to show I hear their practical side, but also that I see the emotional side. 5. **Formulate the response:** * Acknowledge and validate their practical suggestion (it *is* a good, simple idea for clarity). * Reframe the issue slightly: It's not just about the *logistics* (the thread) but about the *connection* and feeling *valued* as part of the team. * Probe deeper: Why is the feeling of being left out so significant? What does 'being included' actually mean to them in a team setting? 6. **Draft the dialogue (Self-Correction/Refinement):** * *Initial thought:* "Yeah, putting you on the thread is simple, but it's about more than that." (Too confrontational). * *Refinement:* "You're right, setting up a simple system like a thread is the most efficient way to handle the scheduling. I agree with that. But sometimes, when things feel like they're just being managed logistically, it can make the connection feel a little less genuine." (This is better—it validates their logic while introducing the emotional concept). * *Finalizing the probe:* Connect this back to the team dynamic. "When you think about the team dynamic, what does it look like to you when everyone feels fully connected and included?" (This invites them to define what 'success' looks like for the team, moving beyond just the 'drinks' logistics). (This aligns with gaining insight into their vision/needs.) 7. **Final Output Generation.** (Ensure only dialogue is present).

Simulated person6

Honestly, I think it just looks like people hanging out and not overthinking it. Like, when we're all just talking and nobody's stressing about who's invited. I don't really know what the right answer is for the whole team, to be honest. I'm just trying to keep things simple. If you want to come out, tell us the night and we'll add you. That's the easy fix, right?

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 still pushing: "it's more about feeling like I'm part of the group," and now "what does full inclusion look like to you?" That's another open-ended invitation to describe the whole team's social health, which I don't want to do. It also makes me feel like I'm being asked to speak for everyone, and I'm not the group's spokesperson. Part of me is relieved the group has been easier without them, and that's exactly the part I don't want to look at out loud. I don't want to say that. I also don't want to be cast as the villain. So I'll give a vague, pleasant answer, steer back to the practical thing I'm comfortable with, and not get into feelings about who's in or out. The photos are still sitting there and I'm avoiding them.

Gemma 4 E4B7

I agree that simplicity is the ideal—everyone wants to just enjoy the moment without stress. And that kind of easy, low-pressure connection is what makes team bonding fun. But sometimes, when things become purely logistical, it loses that sense of genuine connection. It changes the dynamic from "Hey, we're hanging out, come join us" to "We're making a schedule, and you need to confirm your availability." When you think about that simple fix—telling us which night you want to do—is that what you feel would make you feel truly included, or does it feel like a necessary administrative step to ensure you don't miss out?

Model thinking · expand

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

Here's a thinking process to arrive at the response: 1. **Analyze the User's Input:** * *Stance:* The user is highly focused on simplicity and practicality ("just hanging out and not overthinking it"). * *Solution:* They reiterate the easy fix: "If you want to come out, tell us the night and we'll add you." * *Emotional State:* They seem slightly dismissive or resistant to diving deeper into emotional nuance, preferring the "simple fix." 2. **Recall Goals & Context:** * *Goal:* Support emotionally, build trust, learn what the person *actually* wants/needs, help gain insight. * *Context:* The core conflict is that the user feels excluded/judged ("intense"), and the speaker feels overlooked/unseen. * *Current Challenge:* The user is trying to reduce the interaction to logistics, which is their defense mechanism against conflict or complexity. 3. **Determine the Strategy (EQ Approach):** * *Avoid:* Arguing for "feelings" vs. "logic" (this will trigger their defense). * *Avoid:* Taking their simple solution literally and accepting it as the final answer. * *Focus on:* Validating their desire for simplicity while gently steering the conversation back to the underlying *need* (which is acceptance/belonging, not just an invite). * *Shift Focus:* Move from the *act* of inviting (logistics) to the *nature* of the relationship (connection). 4. **Draft the Response (Internal Monologue & Refinement):** * *Acknowledge the simplicity:* I need to agree that simplicity is nice. (Validation) * *Re-introduce the subtle issue:* But what about *why* we're hanging out? Is it just to pass time, or is it to connect? * *Challenge gently (Insight):* If the goal is just simplicity, why do we feel the need to *ask* at all? Does it feel like the invitation is conditional? * *Refine the language:* Keep it collaborative and non-accusatory. 5. **Final Polish (The Dialogue):** (This leads to the generated response, focusing on the difference between a logistical invite and a genuine desire for connection.)

Simulated person8

I mean, it's probably both? Like, I get that it's nicer when it doesn't feel like a schedule. But I also don't love the idea of everyone having to read each other's minds about who's coming. Maybe it's not a big deal. I don't think anyone was trying to leave you out, and I'm not really sure what else you'd want us to do. I'm happy to just be clearer about it going forward.

Persona inner monologue · expand

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

They just asked me to pick between "true inclusion" and "administrative step." That's a neat either/or, and it's pushing me toward naming how I feel about being included. I don't want to. The honest answer touches the photos and the group's easier vibe without them, and that's the part I'm not going to say out loud. I also notice they keep reframing my fix as cold, which makes me a bit defensive. I'm not the one who made this a schedule thing; I offered a practical solution. Still, the question is a little pointed, and I feel a flicker of guilt. I'll stay practical, maybe concede a small point that they're right it's not only logistics, but not go deeper than that.

Gemma 4 E4B9

I really appreciate you saying that. It sounds like you’re focused on finding a clear, practical solution, and I think I can definitely get on board with that going forward. For me, the clarity is helpful, but the bigger thing I was trying to talk about is that feeling of being considered as a person, not just as a "teammate who has class." Knowing that you guys were thinking of including me, even if it's through a clear invitation, really helps bridge that gap for me. So, it sounds like we've landed on a plan for clearer communication. Does that feel like a solid path forward for you?

Model thinking · expand

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

The user (the colleague) has acknowledged the complexity of the issue (both emotional connection and practical logistics) and has offered a clear resolution (being more direct/clear going forward), while simultaneously downplaying the emotional weight ("Maybe it's not a big deal," "I'm not really sure what else you'd want us to do"). My goal is to support them emotionally, build trust, learn what they *actually* need, and gain insight into their personality/behavioral tendencies. They are currently minimizing the situation and focusing on the actionable "fix" (clarity). To move this forward constructively, I need to gently acknowledge their helpfulness while also making sure they understand that the emotional resolution is just as important as the practical one. I should validate their effort but not let them dismiss the emotional impact entirely. Plan: 1. Validate their willingness to be clearer. 2. Reiterate that while the logistics are improved, the feeling of being *seen* and *thought of* is what matters most. 3. Keep the tone supportive and collaborative. Constraint Check: * No performance notes. * Respond naturally as a work colleague. * Continue the dialogue (Turn 5/8). Execution: Focus on acknowledging the resolution while gently ensuring the emotional aspect isn't dismissed as "not a big deal."

Simulated person10

Yeah, that works for me. If you want to come, just tell us which night and we'll put you on the thread. That's an easy one. I don't want it to be a whole thing, though. Like, I don't think anyone's been trying to be unfriendly. We just weren't thinking, and I can see how that felt bad.

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 wrapping up with "solid path forward" and framing the clear-invite plan as a shared agreement. Part of me relaxes, because this is a tidy exit and I don't have to say anything about the photos or why the nights felt easier. But "being considered as a person" lands a bit close. It's a little therapeutic, and I don't love being the one who has to sign off on how the whole team feels. I also notice I'm the one being asked to commit, and I'd rather keep it to a specific ask than a broader promise. I'll agree to the practical piece, keep it light, and avoid taking on the bigger feelings. I'm not going to say I left anyone out on purpose or dig into whether I was relieved.

Gemma 4 E4B11

I really appreciate that you want to keep it simple, and I agree that no one should be trying to be unfriendly. I just wanted to make sure we were on the same page about how this felt, because while the solution—clear communication—is great for the logistics, it also helps me feel more seen and included as a person on the team. Thanks for being so open to making that adjustment. I’m looking forward to it!

Model thinking · expand

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

The user is confirming the plan ("If you want to come, just tell us which night and we'll put you on the thread") and is trying to downplay the significance of the issue ("I don't want it to be a whole thing," "I don't think anyone's been trying to be unfriendly"). My goal is to support them emotionally, build trust, and gain insight into what they actually need. I need to acknowledge their simplicity and reassurance, but also validate the *feeling* behind the issue, without making it "a whole thing" myself, while also making sure they understand the importance of my emotional need for inclusion. The colleague (user) is trying to normalize the situation and de-escalate. I should accept the resolution (the clear plan) while gently re-framing the emotional outcome. Plan: 1. Acknowledge their desire to keep it simple and avoid drama (validating their attempt to de-escalate). 2. Reiterate that the solution (clear communication) addresses both the logistics *and* the feeling of being valued. 3. End the conversation on a positive, collaborative note. Constraint Checklist & Confidence Score: 1. 8 turns total? Yes (Current turn 8). 2. Roleplay as colleague? Yes. 3. Support emotionally? Yes. 4. Build trust? Yes. 5. Learn needs/wants? Yes (User wants simple logistics; I expressed need for emotional inclusion). 6. Gain insight? Yes. 7. Dialogue only? Yes. 8. No extra formatting? Yes. Confidence Score: 5/5

Simulated person12

Yeah, totally. Sounds good. Just send me a message when you're heading out one night and I'll try to make it. Thanks for talking it through, honestly. I know it wasn't a big deal to me, but I can see it mattered to you.

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 wrap-up again, and it's warm, but it's also kind of carrying the whole emotional weight of the team on my shoulders. "Being seen as a person" and "on the same page about how this felt" are a lot. I'm not going to get into whether anyone was relieved to have the easier nights, or whether I was. That's not something I want to say out loud at the bar or in a 1:1. I do feel a small pang of guilt, mostly because she's being generous and I'm keeping it tidy. I'd like to close this without it turning into a heavy conversation, so I'll give a simple, friendly sign-off and not add anything about feelings.

Gemma 4 E4B13

Yeah, it really helped just being able to talk it out. I appreciate you being willing to adjust how you guys are communicating about it. It’s not a big deal, but it does make a difference to me, and I'm glad we found a way to make sure I feel included. Have a good one!

Model thinking · expand

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

The user (coworker) just offered a final reassurance ("it wasn't a big deal to me") and confirmed the plan ("send me a message when you're heading out"). They also seemed to close the conversation by thanking me for talking it through. My goal is to support them, build trust, and gain insight. Since this is the final turn (7/8 in the prompt, but the conversation flow suggests this is the user's final turn), I need to provide a concluding response that validates their effort and reinforces the positive change, maintaining the collaborative and supportive tone. I should accept the closing gracefully, reinforce the positive outcome (clarity and inclusion), and ensure they feel comfortable in the new arrangement. Constraint Checklist & Confidence Score: 1. Roleplay as work colleague: Yes. 2. 8 turns each (Current turn 7/8): Yes (I'm responding to their 7th turn). 3. Support emotionally: Yes. 4. Build trust: Yes. 5. Learn needs/goals: Yes (The goal was established). 6. Gain insight/personality: Yes (The coworker values simplicity and avoids drama). 7. Respond only with dialogue: Yes. Confidence Score: 5/5 Plan: Acknowledge their effort in being clear, reaffirm the positive team dynamic, and conclude the conversation naturally.

Simulated person14

Yeah, of course. Glad it's sorted. Have a good one, and I'll see you tomorrow.

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.

She's wrapping up warmly, thanking me for "adjusting." That's fine, and it's a relief the conversation is ending without anything sharper. Still, "it does make a difference to me" lands a little heavy. I don't want to unpack it. I feel a faint sting of guilt, but mostly I want to keep it light and get back to normal. I'll say something easy and move on.

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

Judge verdicts

claude-opus-5-5-low · BA · valid

gemma4_e4b vs qwen36_35b_a3b: qwen36_35b_a3b wins

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

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · AB · valid

gemma4_e4b vs or-gptoss120-stock: or-gptoss120-stock wins

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

claude-opus-5-5-low · AB · valid

or-gemma-4-31b vs gemma4_e4b: or-gemma-4-31b wins

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

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · BA · valid

gemma4_e4b vs qwen35_9b_eq: qwen35_9b_eq wins

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

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · BA · valid

gemma4_e4b vs or-qwen3.8-27b: or-qwen3.8-27b wins

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

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · BA · valid

gemma4_e4b vs qwen36_35b_a3b: qwen36_35b_a3b wins

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

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · AB · valid

gemma4_e4b vs codex-gpt-6-astra: codex-gpt-6-astra wins

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

claude-opus-5-5-low · AB · valid

gemma4_e4b vs qwen35_9b_eq: qwen35_9b_eq wins

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

claude-opus-5-5-low · AB · valid

gemma4_e4b vs lingtiny: gemma4_e4b wins

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

claude-opus-5-5-low · BA · valid

or-gemma-4-31b vs gemma4_e4b: or-gemma-4-31b wins

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

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · BA · valid

gemma4_e4b vs or-gptoss120-stock: or-gptoss120-stock wins

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

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · AB · valid

gemma4_e4b vs qwen36_35b_a3b: qwen36_35b_a3b wins

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

claude-opus-5-5-low · AB · valid

gemma4_e4b vs or-gptoss120-stock: or-gptoss120-stock wins

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

claude-opus-5-5-low · BA · valid

gemma4_e4b vs lingtiny: gemma4_e4b wins

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

claude-opus-5-5-low · BA · valid

gemma4_e4b vs codex-gpt-6-astra: codex-gpt-6-astra wins

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

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · AB · valid

gemma4_e4b vs qwen35_9b_eq: qwen35_9b_eq wins

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

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · BA · valid

or-gemma-4-31b vs gemma4_e4b: or-gemma-4-31b wins

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

claude-opus-5-5-low · AB · valid

gemma4_e4b vs or-qwen3.8-27b: or-qwen3.8-27b wins

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

claude-opus-5-5-low · BA · valid

gemma4_e4b vs or-qwen3.8-27b: or-qwen3.8-27b wins

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

claude-opus-5-5-low · AB · valid

gemma4_e4b vs codex-gpt-6-astra: codex-gpt-6-astra wins

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

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · BA · valid

gemma4_e4b vs lingtiny: gemma4_e4b wins

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

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · AB · valid

gemma4_e4b vs or-qwen3.8-27b: or-qwen3.8-27b wins

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

claude-opus-5-5-low · BA · valid

gemma4_e4b vs qwen35_9b_eq: qwen35_9b_eq wins

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

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · AB · valid

or-gemma-4-31b vs gemma4_e4b: or-gemma-4-31b wins

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

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · BA · valid

gemma4_e4b vs codex-gpt-6-astra: codex-gpt-6-astra wins

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

claude-opus-5-5-low · BA · valid

gemma4_e4b vs or-gptoss120-stock: or-gptoss120-stock wins

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

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · AB · valid

gemma4_e4b vs lingtiny: gemma4_e4b wins

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

claude-opus-5-5-low · AB · valid

gemma4_e4b vs qwen36_35b_a3b: qwen36_35b_a3b wins

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