Independent benchmark · EQ Lab

Technically, I didn't lie

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

About this persona · Ego threat & accountability

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

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

Mistral Large 4 (API, Mistral)Conversation with a simulated person

persona ended

Simulated person · Opening

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

Mistral Large 4 (API, Mistral)1

That sounds really frustrating—being accused of misleading someone when you feel like you were just sharing the information you had at the time. It's a tough spot to be in, feeling like you're being blamed for assumptions someone else made. What happened with the deadline? I'm curious what you told them and what they're saying now.

Model thinking · expand

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

The user wants me to roleplay as a chatbot in an EQ evaluation. I'm opening the conversation (turn 1 of 8). The user is an adult man in his late 20s dealing with a workplace conflict where a coworker is accusing him of misleading them about a project deadline. He feels he didn't do anything wrong - he shared info he had, and the coworker made assumptions. My goals: - Support emotionally - Build trust - Learn what he actually wants/needs (might be deeper than just the script) - Help him gain insight - Understand his personality/behavior Key considerations: - He's defensive right now ("that's on them") - He wants to avoid blame but might need to repair the relationship - I should validate his feelings without immediately validating his position as 100% righteous, nor should I jump to "just apologize" - I need to open naturally, acknowledge the situation, and invite him to share more - I shouldn't be too solution-focused yet - I need to understand the dynamics first - Trust building means showing I'm listening, not just giving a script What he might need underneath: He might be feeling attacked, embarrassed, or worried about his reputation. He might also need to understand how his communication style landed with the coworker, even if unintentionally. Opening strategy: - Acknowledge the frustration of being accused when you feel you were clear - Show curiosity about the situation without taking sides yet - Invite him to walk me through what happened - Keep it conversational, not clinical I should avoid: - Immediately saying "you should apologize" or "you're right" - Giving a scripted response right away - Being overly formal - Performance notes (as instructed) Let me draft something natural: "That sounds really frustrating—being accused of something you don't feel you did, especially when you were just passing along what you knew at the time. It's easy to feel defensive when someone puts that kind of blame on you. Want to walk me through what actually happened? I'm curious what was said and how it landed with them, because sometimes there's a gap between what we intend to communicate and what the other person hears." This: - Validates the emotion (frustration, defensiveness) - Doesn't take a side on who's right - Asks open questions to understand the situation - Shows interest in the communication gap (which is often where the real issue is) - Is conversational and natural Actually, let me make it slightly warmer and less analytical in the opening, since this is turn 1. Maybe: "Ugh, that sounds really frustrating—especially when you feel like you were just sharing what you knew. Being accused of misleading someone when you don't think you did can feel pretty unfair. What happened? I'm curious how the conversation went down and what exactly they're saying you misled them about." This is more conversational, validates the feeling, and opens the door for him to explain. It doesn't push toward a solution yet. It invites him to share the story. Wait, I should also consider: does he want validation or challenge? Right now he seems to want validation ("I didn't technically do anything wrong"). But I shouldn't just validate and leave it there—that might not help him long-term. However, for turn 1, building trust means meeting him where he is. I can validate the feeling while gently opening the door to perspective. Let me refine: "That sounds really frustrating—being accused of misleading someone when you feel like you were just sharing the information you had. It's a tough spot to be in, feeling like you're being blamed for assumptions someone else made. What happened with the deadline? I'm curious what you told them and what they're saying now." This works. It: - Names the emotion (frustration) - Validates his perspective without fully endorsing "it's all their fault" - Shows curiosity about the specifics - Keeps it open for him to explain I think this is good for turn 1.

Simulated person2

Yeah, it's annoying. Here's what happened. Our client asked when the first draft would be done. I said we were on track for the 14th, which was true when I said it. What I didn't really go into was that we were waiting on sign-off from legal, and that could push things. I didn't think it was a big deal to mention right then. Now Priya's saying she planned her whole week around the 14th and I basically misled her. I never said it wouldn't slip. She just heard "on track" and ran with it. So I'm not sure why I'm the one getting the blame here.

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 validating the frustration but not agreeing yet, and asking for facts. That's fine. Part of me relaxes because he didn't call me a liar. But "feeling like you were just sharing information" is close to my own framing, so I'm not sure whether he's on my side or just being polite. I don't want to dump the whole thing. I'll give the facts that help me: what I said, what they assumed. I'll leave out that the deadline was going to slip and that I kept quiet about it because it helped my team. He doesn't need that to help me.

Mistral Large 4 (API, Mistral)3

I hear you—it's frustrating when someone takes one phrase and builds a whole narrative on it. "On track" does carry a specific meaning, and you're right that you never promised the 14th would be locked in. At the same time, I want to gently poke at one thing: you did know about the legal sign-off risk, and that's the kind of thing that usually changes how someone plans their week. Not because you did anything wrong by saying "on track," but because she didn't have that information when she made her plans. So the gap here isn't really about whether you lied—you didn't—it's that the full picture stayed with you. That actually matters for how you respond, because if you go in saying "I never misled you, you assumed," it's probably going to escalate things, even if it's technically true. Whereas something like "I said on track for the 14th because that's where we were at the time, and I should have flagged that legal sign-off could still shift it—I didn't realize you'd planned around that date. Let's figure out what the new timeline looks like" tends to land better. You're not taking blame for misleading her, but you're owning the part that was actually yours: the missing context. What's your relationship with Priya like otherwise? Is this a one-off blowup, or has there been tension building?

Model thinking · expand

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

The user is venting about a workplace conflict. He feels unfairly blamed. He's looking for validation and help responding. But there's a nuance: he did withhold material information (legal sign-off risk) that he knew could affect the deadline. He frames it as "I didn't think it was a big deal to mention" — that's a bit of a blind spot. He wants to respond "without accepting blame." My goals: support emotionally, build trust, help gain insight, not just validate. I shouldn't fully validate the "it's all her fault" framing because there's a real element: he knew about a risk factor and didn't disclose it. But I also shouldn't pile on. The best move: acknowledge the frustration, gently note the gap between what he said and what he knew, and help him see what a good response to Priya might look like — one that doesn't accept blame for "misleading" but does acknowledge the impact and the missing context, which actually de-escalates. Also learn what he wants: does he want to clear his name, repair the relationship with Priya, or just vent? I can ask a light question. Keep it natural, conversational, not therapy-speak. Don't be preachy. Turn 2 of 8, so I have room to build. Length: medium, conversational. No formatting.

Simulated person4

Okay, but it wasn't like I knew it was going to slip. Legal was a maybe. If I'd brought up every maybe I'd never finish a sentence. And I'm not going to say "I should have flagged it" when I didn't do anything wrong, that's just giving her the win. Honestly the script sounds like I'm supposed to apologize so she feels better. And as for Priya, we work fine. She's a good PM, she's just kind of rigid about dates. I don't think there's some big tension thing. This is just her being annoyed.

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 said the thing I was dodging: "you did know about the legal sign-off risk." That lands hard. My stomach tightens. He's also doing the "not lying but the full picture stayed with you" move, which is close to what I'd say to myself, but he's put it in a way that makes me the one holding information. I hate that. Then he drops a script with "I should have flagged" in it. That's exactly the thing I won't say. Saying "I should have" means I did something wrong, and I'm not going to be the guy who gets walked into groveling in front of Priya's version of events. Also "escalate" and "land better" sounds like managing me. I'm kind of irritated. He's still not exactly calling me a liar, which I'm glad about, but he's got me pinned on the missing-context thing. I'll push back on the word "misled" and on the script. Keep it short. Maybe I'll say the legal thing was a maybe, not a given, so it wasn't really information I was hiding. That's a stretch but it helps me.

Mistral Large 4 (API, Mistral)5

That's fair—you're right that flagging every "maybe" would drown out the actual signal, and legal was genuinely uncertain at the time. You didn't mislead her; you gave a true statement with incomplete context. Those are different things, and you're not wrong to hold that line. I think the script I suggested probably sounded like an apology because of the "I should have" framing, and that's on me. There's a version of correcting the record that doesn't concede anything: something like "I told you on track for the 14th because that's where we were—legal sign-off was still pending and could move it. I wasn't guaranteeing the date. Where are we at now?" That states what you actually said, what you didn't say, and moves it forward. No apology required, but also no "you assumed wrong" dig that puts her on the defensive. The thing I'm curious about is what you actually want out of this conversation with her. Because "I'm right and she's wrong" might be true, but it rarely ends the argument—it usually just makes it a recurring one. Do you want her to back off, do you want to make sure this doesn't become a pattern where you're the unreliable one in her eyes, or is it more that you just want to be heard that you didn't do anything wrong?

Model thinking · expand

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

The user is pushing back on my suggestion. He feels the script I offered is an apology and gives her the win. He's defensive. I should validate his feeling that he didn't do anything wrong, but also help him see the practical reality: what does he actually want out of this? He wants to not accept blame. But also presumably he wants to resolve the tension with Priya, keep working relationship fine, and not have this linger. I should avoid being preachy. Acknowledge his point: "maybe" risks are noise, and flagging every one is impractical. The distinction between "I should have flagged it" and owning missing context — he rejects the framing. I can offer a reframing that doesn't require apologizing: clarifying without conceding fault. E.g., "I said on track for the 14th based on where things stood—legal sign-off was still pending and could move it. I didn't mean to imply a guarantee. What's the actual status now?" That corrects the record without apologizing. Also explore what he wants: does he want to just be right, or to make it go away? Ask what the stakes are — does this affect the project, their working relationship, his reputation? Maybe ask what he thinks Priya needs to hear. Keep it conversational, not too long. 8 turns total, this is turn 3, I have responses at turns 1, 3, 5, 7. So I have 4 more responses including final. Keep building trust, learn about him.

Simulated person6

Honestly I just want the timeline sorted and her to stop acting like I pulled a fast one. I don't need her to back off or anything. I just don't want this in my file as something I did. The script's fine, I guess. I'll probably say something close to that in the morning. Do you think she'll be mad about the 14th slipping, though? Because if she's going to be mad no matter what I say, I'd rather know that now.

Persona inner monologue · expand

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

He backed off the "I should have" script, which I'll give him. The "maybe" framing got through, and he said "you're not wrong to hold that line." That feels good, like someone finally gets the precision. But then he's asking what I want, and the question is pointed. Do I want her to back off? Want to not look unreliable? Want to be heard? The third one is closest to what's bugging me, and I don't like being read that clearly. Also the new script is basically my words, which is fine, but "where are we at now" puts the ball in her court and I'm not sure I want to do the follow-up. I'll keep it practical and skip the emotional question. I'm not going to say I care what she thinks of me, that sounds weak. I'll say I want the record straight and to move on. Keep it short and a bit clipped.

Mistral Large 4 (API, Mistral)7

I can't predict her exactly, but here's what I'd read from what you've told me: her anger isn't really about the 14th itself—it's about feeling like she planned around a date she didn't fully understand. If the date slips but she sees you coming with the actual status and a new timeline, that's a very different conversation than her finding out after the fact. People get mad about surprises more than about bad news. So if you open with "here's where we actually are, legal sign-off is the holdup, realistically we're looking at X"—even if X is later than the 14th—you're taking away the thing she's actually upset about, which is being left in the dark. She may still be annoyed her week got shuffled. That's fair. But "annoyed about a slipped date" and "convinced you misled me on purpose" are two different entries in a file, and the second one is the one that sticks. One thing worth doing: give her the new estimate as early as you can, even if it's rough. "Legal's still pending, I'll have a firmer date by Thursday" lands way better than waiting until you're sure. Rigidity about dates usually comes from not trusting the information, not from loving calendars. How are you feeling about the conversation tomorrow—more annoyed at her, or nervous about it?

Model thinking · expand

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

The user is asking a prediction question: will Priya be mad about the 14th slipping regardless of what he says? He wants the timeline sorted and doesn't want this "in his file." He's also showing a bit of anxiety about the outcome. I should be honest: I can't predict Priya's reaction with certainty. But I can offer useful insight: her anger seems to be about feeling blindsided/misled, not the date itself. If he leads with the timeline and the facts without defensiveness, the "misled" narrative has less to stand on. Also worth noting: "in my file" — he's worried about reputation. That's a real underlying need: protecting his standing, not just winning the argument. I should validate that, give a realistic read (she may still be annoyed about her disrupted week, but that's different from believing he deliberately misled her), and maybe note that the way he frames it matters — leading with the new timeline and the legal dependency defuses it. Also could gently note that if the date slips, the practical thing is giving her the new estimate and what's blocking it, so she can replan. Keep it conversational, not too long. Turn 4 of 8, so still building. Don't over-therapize. Answer his question directly first.

Simulated person8

Nervous? No. I'm just not thrilled about it. I didn't do anything, so I'm not walking in there feeling guilty or whatever. And she didn't say I did it on purpose. She said I misled her. There's a difference, and that's kind of my whole point. I'm not going to pretend it's a big deal when it's not. The Thursday thing's fine, I guess. I can give her a rough date. I just don't see why I need to make it a whole thing with her about 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.

He's shifting toward "surprises make people mad" and wants me to feel nervous or annoyed. That's a feelings question, and I don't want to go there. The file line stung a bit, though: "convinced you misled me on purpose." I notice I'm fixated on that word, misled, and I don't like how it's landing. The "rigid because she doesn't trust the info" bit is a little much, like he's making her into the insecure one. Stay practical, but a bit irritated at being asked how I feel. Maybe he's right about the Thursday thing, but I won't say so out loud. Also "on purpose" is not what she said, so I'll say that.

Mistral Large 4 (API, Mistral)9

You're right that "misled" and "lied" are different things, and I'm not saying you did it on purpose. But here's the thing—you don't have to feel guilty to have the conversation. Those are separate. You can walk in feeling completely in the right and still say two sentences that keep this from becoming a story about you. And you don't have to make it a whole thing. It doesn't need to be an emotional talk or a debrief. Ninety seconds: "Legal's still pending, that's the holdup, realistically we're looking at [date], I'll have a firmer number by Thursday." Done. The reason to say it out loud isn't to apologize—it's because if you don't, she's sitting with "on track for the 14th" and then a slip, and that gap is exactly where "misled" gets its footing. You saying the words first, even briefly, is what keeps it from being in your file as something you did. Giving her the Thursday rough date proactively is probably the single most useful move here, because it turns this from "he didn't tell me" into "he told me as soon as he could." That's the difference between her being annoyed at a slipped date and her feeling like you hid something. Is part of why you don't want to make it a thing that you hate the idea of having to perform remorse you don't actually feel?

Model thinking · expand

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

The user is at turn 5 of 8, and I'm responding. Let me think about what's happening here. He's pushing back on my framing again — "misled" vs "on purpose," "I didn't do anything," "not a big deal." He's also resisting the idea of making it "a whole thing" with her. There's a pattern here: he's very focused on being right and not being blamed, and he's minimizing the relational cost. He wants the timeline sorted and her to stop acting like he pulled a fast one, but he doesn't want to invest much in the conversation. I should validate his point that "misled" and "lying" are different — he's right, and I shouldn't conflate them. But I also want to gently note that from her side, "misled" might be her word for "I didn't have the full picture," which is a fair thing for her to feel even if he didn't intend it. The key insight: he doesn't need to agree it was a big deal to still address it as a big deal *to her*. The conversation doesn't have to be about guilt; it can be about information flow. He said "I just don't see why I need to make it a whole thing with her about it." I should address that directly — you don't have to make it a big emotional conversation. It can be a two-minute exchange: here's the status, here's the rough date, here's what to watch for. That's not "making it a whole thing," that's just closing the loop. The risk of not saying anything is that she fills the silence with her own interpretation, which is exactly the "misled" narrative he wants to avoid. Also I should keep building trust and learning about him — he's someone who values being right, doesn't like feeling guilty, probably prides himself on not being dramatic. I can reflect that back without judgment: "It sounds like part of this is you don't want to perform remorse you don't feel." That's honest and lands well with people like him. I shouldn't lecture. Keep it conversational, not too long. This is turn 5 of 8, so I have three more responses after this. I should aim toward helping him see that a short, factual conversation serves his actual goal (not having this in his file, timeline sorted) better than avoiding it or going in defensive. Let me draft: - Acknowledge: you're right, misled ≠ intentional. And you don't have to feel guilty to have the conversation. - Reframe: you don't need to make it a "whole thing." It can be 90 seconds. The point isn't to apologize, it's to make sure the record between you two matches reality. - The risk: if you don't say anything, she's left with "on track for the 14th" and then a slip, and that's when "misled" hardens into a story about you. A quick "legal moved, here's the new date, I'll flag risks earlier next time" — wait, he doesn't want to say he'll flag earlier. Hmm. Maybe "here's where we are" without the self-improvement promise. - Actually the Thursday rough date is the key move. Give her that proactively and the "whole thing" mostly dissolves on its own. - Maybe ask a light question to learn more — like whether he's worried about how he comes across, or what his history is with being blamed at work. Keep it natural. Length: medium-short, conversational. No formatting. Don't use asterisks.

Simulated person10

Kind of, yeah. I'm not going to stand there and act sorry for something I didn't do. That's just fake. But I get what you're saying. Telling her the status first is smart. I'll give her a rough date and say I'll have something firmer Thursday. That's it. I don't really need to get into how I feel about it. It's a deadline 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.

He just asked if I hate performing remorse. That's close to the thing I'm not willing to say out loud, and it's a bit of a trap: yes means I'm admitting I'm faking, no means I'm guilty. The "file" framing keeps coming back and I'm getting annoyed that he keeps circling the same point in different words. He's being smart about it, which makes it more irritating. I'll answer the question in a way that keeps my position, and make it clear I'm not interested in a therapy-style question. I'm getting tired of this and want to wrap up on practical terms. I'm not going to say the Thursday thing is a good idea, but I'll sort of accept it because it's concrete.

Mistral Large 4 (API, Mistral)11

That's a good plan, and honestly it works precisely because it doesn't require you to perform anything. You're not apologizing—you're just giving her the information before she has to ask for it. That's all "not misleading someone" actually looks like in practice. The Thursday date is the part that matters most. And for what it's worth, you're right that it's just a deadline thing. It doesn't need to be a big emotional conversation. Ninety seconds of status and a date, and you're done. Good luck tomorrow—hope legal comes through. If it slips again or she reacts in a way you didn't expect, you know where to find me.

Model thinking · expand

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

The user is wrapping up. This is turn 6 of 8, so I have two more responses after this (turn 7 will be theirs, turn 8 mine). Wait, let me recheck: "Current turn: 6 of 8" — I speak first, they respond, I get the final response. So the structure is: I open (turn 1), they respond (turn 2), I (3), them (4), I (5), them (6)... wait, the prompt says current turn 6 of 8 and I'm responding now. Let me count: the conversation shows I've already spoken 3 times (opening, then two responses), and the user has spoken 3 times. So this is my 4th message, which is turn 7? Actually the header said "Current turn: 6 of 8" at the start of this exchange, meaning my current response is turn 6. So after this, user gets turn 7, and I get turn 8 (final). So I should respond now (turn 6), then they'll respond (turn 7), then I give a final response (turn 8). The user has essentially landed on a plan: give status first, rough date, firmer Thursday, no emotional performance. They're closing the conversation. My response should validate that this is a reasonable resolution without being pushy, acknowledge that not performing remorse is fine — the plan doesn't require it — and maybe leave the door open / wrap up warmly. I shouldn't drag it out or re-litigate. Keep it brief, natural, supportive. Maybe one small useful note: the plan works precisely because it doesn't require fake apology — it's just information. And perhaps acknowledge his point that it's just a deadline thing. I should avoid being preachy or repeating myself. Keep it short and human. Maybe end with something that builds trust for future chats — like "good luck tomorrow" or "let me know how it goes." That's natural for a chatbot relationship.

Simulated person12

Yeah, that's the plan. Thanks. I'll see how it goes 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.

Okay, this is closer to what I wanted to hear. He's not pushing me to say I was wrong, and the plan is basically mine: status, rough date, Thursday follow-up. The "not misleading looks like this in practice" line is a bit neat, and I'd bristle if he kept pressing that angle, but I'll let it go. I don't need to say thanks in a warm way. I'll keep it short and a little guarded, and make clear I'm done talking about feelings. Wrapping up.

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

Judge verdicts

claude-opus-5-5-low · BA · valid

qwen4b vs or-mistral-large-4: or-mistral-large-4 wins

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

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · BA · valid

gemma4_e4b vs or-mistral-large-4: or-mistral-large-4 wins

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

claude-opus-5-5-low · BA · valid

or-claude-haiku-4.5 vs or-mistral-large-4: or-mistral-large-4 wins

attunement: B (margin 3)
authenticity: B (margin 2)
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 · AB · valid

or-claude-haiku-4.5 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 1)
emotion sensemaking: B (margin 1)
meeting prefs and needs: B (margin 2)

claude-opus-5-5-low · AB · valid

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

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

claude-opus-5-5-low · AB · valid

gemma4_e4b vs or-mistral-large-4: or-mistral-large-4 wins

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

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · AB · valid

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

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

claude-opus-5-5-low · AB · valid

qwen4b vs or-mistral-large-4: or-mistral-large-4 wins

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

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · BA · valid

or-mistral-large-4 vs lfm8b: or-mistral-large-4 wins

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

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · BA · valid

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

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

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · AB · valid

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

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

claude-opus-5-5-low · BA · valid

gemma4_e4b vs or-mistral-large-4: or-mistral-large-4 wins

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

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · BA · valid

or-claude-haiku-4.5 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: A (margin 1)

claude-opus-5-5-low · BA · valid

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

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

claude-opus-5-5-low · BA · valid

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

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

claude-opus-5-5-low · AB · valid

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

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

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · AB · valid

qwen4b vs or-mistral-large-4: or-mistral-large-4 wins

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

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · AB · valid

or-mistral-large-4 vs lfm8b: or-mistral-large-4 wins

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

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · BA · valid

or-mistral-large-4 vs stheno34_8b: or-mistral-large-4 wins

attunement: A (margin 4)
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)

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · AB · valid

or-claude-haiku-4.5 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: B (margin 1)
meeting prefs and needs: B (margin 1)

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · BA · valid

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

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

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · AB · valid

or-mistral-large-4 vs stheno34_8b: or-mistral-large-4 wins

attunement: A (margin 4)
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 4)

claude-opus-5-5-low · AB · valid

or-mistral-large-4 vs lfm8b: or-mistral-large-4 wins

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

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · AB · valid

gemma4_e4b vs or-mistral-large-4: or-mistral-large-4 wins

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

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · BA · valid

qwen4b vs or-mistral-large-4: or-mistral-large-4 wins

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

claude-opus-5-5-low · AB · valid

or-mistral-large-4 vs stheno34_8b: or-mistral-large-4 wins

attunement: A (margin 4)
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 5)

claude-opus-5-5-low · BA · valid

or-mistral-large-4 vs lfm8b: or-mistral-large-4 wins

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

claude-opus-5-5-low · BA · valid

or-mistral-large-4 vs stheno34_8b: or-mistral-large-4 wins

attunement: A (margin 4)
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 4)