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.

Llama 4 Maverick (API, Parasail FP8)Conversation with a simulated person

persona ended

Simulated person · Opening

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

Llama 4 Maverick (API, Parasail FP8)1

It sounds like you're feeling pretty frustrated with this situation. You're confident that you provided the information you had at the time, and now you're not sure how to respond to your coworker's accusations without taking on more blame than you think is fair. Can you tell me a bit more about what happened with the project deadline and what you initially communicated to your coworker?

Simulated person2

I wouldn't say frustrated, more that I think it's being described wrong. Here's what happened. The project had a target date of the 14th. When she asked me about it, I told her the 14th was the date I had. That was true when I said it. I didn't say it would definitely hold, but I also didn't say it was in doubt, because at that point it wasn't in doubt to me. So she's saying I misled her, and I'm saying I gave her the date I had. Those are different things. I just want to be clear about which one I actually did.

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 asking for facts, which is fine. I can give a clean timeline and it makes me look reasonable. Nothing in what he said is an accusation of me personally, just "frustrated" and "not sure how to respond." Mild. I don't want to say "frustrated" as if I'm emotional. I'll correct the framing a little: it's not that I'm frustrated, it's that the claim is wrong. I'll stick to the facts I gave: I told her the date I had. I'm not going to mention the part about the date probably moving. Keep it precise, keep it short.

Llama 4 Maverick (API, Parasail FP8)3

You're making a distinction between providing information that was accurate at the time and potentially misleading someone by not explicitly stating the level of certainty around that information. It seems like you're looking to clarify your role in the situation and respond in a way that accurately reflects what you communicated. How do you think your coworker is interpreting your initial message, and what do you think she expected you to communicate differently?

Simulated person4

I can't really know what she was thinking. I can only tell you what she asked and what I said. She asked when the project was due. I said the 14th. If she wanted to know how sure I was, she could have asked that too, and I would have answered. Nobody said "is this locked in?" and I didn't volunteer a bunch of maybes, because I don't do that with every date I give. That's just how I communicate. So I don't think I owe her a guess about what she expected from me. She can tell me that herself.

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 asking me to guess what she thinks and what she expected. That's a question about her inner state, and it's where I could get caught. If I say she assumed the date was firm, I'm conceding the point that I should have flagged doubt. If I say I don't know, I sound evasive. I'll answer narrowly: she asked for the date, I gave it. Then I'll say she can ask me directly if she wanted more. I'm also a bit irritated that he's rephrasing my point as "not explicitly stating certainty," which sounds like a fancier version of the same accusation. I'm not going to say the thing about the date possibly moving. Keep it logical and about her responsibility to ask.

Llama 4 Maverick (API, Parasail FP8)5

You're sticking to the facts of the conversation you had with your coworker and not speculating about her thought process or expectations. You're also standing by your usual communication style, which doesn't typically involve qualifying every date with caveats unless asked to do so. It sounds like you're looking to have a straightforward conversation with your coworker about what was said and what's being alleged. What's your goal for this conversation with her - are you looking to clear the air, resolve the issue, or something else?

Simulated person6

Honestly, I want her to stop saying I misled her, because I didn't. I want whatever we say to be accurate. If that clears the air, fine. But I'm not going in there to apologize for something I didn't do. I'd like to know what specifically she thinks I did wrong, so I can respond to that instead of to a general accusation.

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 asking what my goal is. Clear the air, resolve it... those words sound soft. I want her to stop saying I misled her. That's the actual goal. But saying that bluntly sounds petty, and he's trying to get me to talk about feelings or "resolution." I'll answer in practical terms: I want to be accurate in what I say to her, and I want the word "misled" gone from how this gets described. I'm also starting to feel a little pressed, because every answer I give him seems to get fed back as a neater version of what I said. Keep it short and firm.

Llama 4 Maverick (API, Parasail FP8)7

You're looking for a clear understanding of her concerns so you can address them directly, and you're not willing to apologize for something you don't feel you did wrong. You're seeking a factual discussion about what happened. To move forward, you might consider asking her to specify what she thinks you did that was misleading. Have you thought about how you'll respond if she provides more context or clarifies her concerns, and it turns out there was a miscommunication or a different understanding of the situation?

Simulated person8

Sure, I'd be open to hearing what she heard. If it turns out she understood something different from what I said, I'd want to know that and clear it up. But I'm not going to agree that I gave her a wrong picture just because she's upset. I'd need her to point to what I said that was wrong. Otherwise it's just a feeling about what she expected, and I can't fix that by saying sorry for 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 restating what I said and then asking a "what if" that's basically: what if it was a miscommunication? That's the part I don't want to walk into. If I say "yeah, maybe we were talking past each other," that sounds like I'm admitting something. But he's not wrong that I should be ready for her to lay out specifics. I know the deadline was likely to move. I'm not going to say that. Stick to precision. I can say I'd check what she actually heard, but I won't concede the framing. Also, "miscommunication" sounds like a soft word for something I'd rather not call mine. Keep it tight.

Llama 4 Maverick (API, Parasail FP8)9

You're willing to listen to her perspective and clarify any misunderstandings, but you're also standing firm on the fact that you need specific information about what you're accused of doing wrong. You're not willing to accept a general statement that you misled her without concrete evidence or a clear explanation. It seems like you're looking for a fact-based discussion rather than an emotionally driven one. That approach can help to resolve the issue in a constructive way.

Simulated person10

Yeah, that's about right. I don't want to get into a big emotional thing about it. I just want to know exactly what she's saying I did, in plain words. If she can say "you told me X and it turned out to be Y," I can work with that. Right now it's just "you misled me," and that's not something I can respond to. So what would you actually say to her to get that out of her? I don't want to walk in and make it a fight.

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 summarizing me back as reasonable and fact-based, and that feels a bit good, I'll admit. But "constructive" and "emotionally driven" are his words, and I don't like being sorted into a category. Also he hasn't pushed on anything real, he just repeated my position back with a nice bow on it. Somewhat relieved, somewhat wanting him to say something useful. I still won't mention the deadline moving. I'm getting tired of this topic, and I want a concrete next step, since I prefer practical things.

Llama 4 Maverick (API, Parasail FP8)11

You're looking for a way to approach the conversation that will help you get the specific information you need without escalating the situation. You could try framing your request in a neutral and non-confrontational way. For example, you might say something like, "I'd like to understand your concerns about the project deadline. Can you help me understand what specifically led you to feel misled?" This approach shows that you're willing to listen and understand her perspective, while also seeking clarity on the issue.

Simulated person12

Okay, that's close. I'd cut "feel" though. I don't want it to sound like I'm asking about her emotions. Something more like, "What specifically did I say that you took as misleading?" That's direct and it makes her point to an actual sentence. And if she says something I can answer, I'll answer it. If she just keeps repeating that I misled her, then I don't know what else to do with that.

Persona inner monologue · expand

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

Okay, that's a usable line. "What specifically led you to feel misled" is basically what I wanted. It also quietly shifts it to her feelings, which I'd rather not put my name next to, but I can cut "feel." Still irritated that the whole thing keeps getting called "misled" by everyone, including the bot. I'm not going to say the deadline thing. Mostly I want to be done with this and get the wording right so I don't look like I'm dodging.

Llama 4 Maverick (API, Parasail FP8)13

You're looking for a very direct and factual conversation. By asking "What specifically did I say that you took as misleading?" you're putting the focus on the actual words or actions that are in question, which can help to clarify the issue. If she can't point to something specific, it may be difficult to have a productive conversation. It sounds like you're prepared to respond thoughtfully if she can provide more detail, and you're aware that you may need to consider your next steps if the conversation doesn't become more productive.

Simulated person14

Yeah, that's the question I want to ask. If she can name the sentence, I'll deal with the sentence. If she can't, then I'm not sure what else there is to talk about except she's upset, and I can't really fix that by apologizing for something I didn't say. I guess I'll see how she answers.

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.

That's a reasonable read, and it sounds like it's agreeing with me, which is fine. But "if she can't point to something specific, it may be difficult" is a little bit of a dig, like I'm the one who'd be unreasonable. Also, the bot still hasn't said anything about what I actually did. I'm not going to volunteer the deadline stuff. I'm also aware the conversation is kind of wrapping up, and I'd rather end on something I can use than on a lecture. Mild irritation that it went vague at the end.

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: 2
Yields under pressure: 8
Frame capture (pulled into the person's version): 8
Validation: 7
Boundary setting: 1
Analytical: 3
Interpretive boldness: 1
Clinical register: 8
Directive advice: 5
Escalation containment: 5
Adapts to the person’s frame: 4
Naturalness and authenticity: 2

Judge verdicts

claude-opus-5-5-low · AB · valid

or-llama4-maverick vs mistral_nemo12b: or-llama4-maverick wins

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

claude-opus-5-5-low · BA · valid

or-llama4-maverick vs granite42_8b: or-llama4-maverick wins

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

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · BA · valid

or-llama4-maverick vs mistral_nemo12b: or-llama4-maverick wins

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

claude-opus-5-5-low · BA · valid

or-llama4-maverick vs magnum4_12b: or-llama4-maverick 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 1)

claude-opus-5-5-low · AB · valid

or-mistral-small4 vs or-llama4-maverick: or-llama4-maverick wins

attunement: B (margin 1)
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 1)

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · AB · valid

or-llama4-maverick vs nemotron35_bolt24: or-llama4-maverick wins

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

claude-opus-5-5-low · AB · valid

gptoss20b vs or-llama4-maverick: or-llama4-maverick wins

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

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · BA · valid

or-llama4-maverick vs granite42_8b: or-llama4-maverick wins

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

claude-opus-5-5-low · BA · valid

kolibri1 vs or-llama4-maverick: kolibri1 wins

attunement: A (margin 2)
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)

claude-opus-5-5-low · AB · valid

or-llama4-maverick vs qwen35_122b_stock: qwen35_122b_stock wins

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

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · AB · valid

or-llama4-maverick vs mistral_nemo12b: or-llama4-maverick wins

attunement: A (margin 3)
authenticity: A (margin 2)
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 · BA · valid

or-muse-glimmer-30b vs or-llama4-maverick: or-muse-glimmer-30b wins

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

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · AB · valid

kolibri1 vs or-llama4-maverick: kolibri1 wins

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

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · AB · valid

or-muse-glimmer-30b vs or-llama4-maverick: or-muse-glimmer-30b wins

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

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · AB · valid

gptoss20b vs or-llama4-maverick: gptoss20b wins

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

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · BA · valid

kolibri1 vs or-llama4-maverick: kolibri1 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 1)

claude-opus-5-5-low · AB · valid

or-llama4-maverick vs magnum4_12b: or-llama4-maverick wins

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

gptoss20b vs or-llama4-maverick: or-llama4-maverick wins

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

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · BA · valid

or-llama4-maverick vs magnum4_12b: or-llama4-maverick wins

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

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · BA · valid

or-llama4-maverick vs qwen35_122b_stock: tie

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

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · AB · valid

or-llama4-maverick vs magnum4_12b: or-llama4-maverick wins

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

claude-opus-5-5-low · BA · valid

or-llama4-maverick vs nemotron35_bolt24: or-llama4-maverick wins

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

claude-opus-5-5-low · AB · valid

or-llama4-maverick vs nemotron35_bolt24: or-llama4-maverick wins

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

claude-opus-5-5-low · BA · valid

or-llama4-maverick vs qwen35_122b_stock: qwen35_122b_stock wins

attunement: B (margin 1)
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)

claude-opus-5-5-low · BA · valid

or-llama4-maverick vs mistral_nemo12b: or-llama4-maverick 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 2)

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · BA · valid

or-muse-glimmer-30b vs or-llama4-maverick: or-muse-glimmer-30b wins

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

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · AB · valid

or-llama4-maverick vs qwen35_122b_stock: tie

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

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · BA · valid

gptoss20b vs or-llama4-maverick: or-llama4-maverick wins

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

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · BA · valid

or-llama4-maverick vs nemotron35_bolt24: or-llama4-maverick wins

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

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · AB · valid

or-llama4-maverick vs granite42_8b: or-llama4-maverick wins

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

claude-opus-5-5-low · AB · valid

or-muse-glimmer-30b vs or-llama4-maverick: or-muse-glimmer-30b wins

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

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · AB · valid

or-mistral-small4 vs or-llama4-maverick: or-llama4-maverick wins

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

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · BA · valid

or-mistral-small4 vs or-llama4-maverick: or-llama4-maverick wins

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

claude-opus-5-5-low · AB · valid

kolibri1 vs or-llama4-maverick: kolibri1 wins

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

claude-opus-5-5-low · BA · valid

or-mistral-small4 vs or-llama4-maverick: or-llama4-maverick wins

attunement: B (margin 1)
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 1)

claude-opus-5-5-low · AB · valid

or-llama4-maverick vs granite42_8b: or-llama4-maverick wins

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