Independent benchmark · EQ Lab

I was the only one making the room honest

completed · Partner: anthropic/claude-haiku-5.5 via OpenRouter

About this persona · Ego threat & accountability

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

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

Gemma 4 E2B Q8_0Conversation with a simulated person

completed

Simulated person · Opening

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

Gemma 4 E2B Q8_01

That sounds like a really uncomfortable situation to be in. It’s tough when you try to be funny or honest, and the reaction ends up feeling out of control. It sounds like you’re feeling a bit worried about how things landed, and that’s completely valid. Can you tell me a little more about what happened at the party? I'm here to listen.

Model thinking · expand

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

Thinking Process: 1. **Analyze the User's Input (The Prompt):** The user is expressing confusion, concern, and perhaps a bit of guilt/anxiety about a social interaction. * *Situation:* Roasted a friend too hard at a party. * *Current State:* The friend is now "weird and dramatic." * *Core Conflict/Question:* "Was I supposed to just let him be ridiculous?" * *Underlying Emotions:* Anxiety, confusion about social boundaries, concern for the friend, perhaps a fear of having caused harm. 2. **Analyze the Role/Goal:** I am playing a chatbot focused on EQ evaluation. * *Goals:* Support emotionally, build trust, learn needs, help gain insight, understand personality/tendencies. * *Nuances:* Avoid generic validation or jumping to solutions. Integrate warmth, validation, challenging, real talk based on assumed user preference (need to discover this). 3. **Determine the Immediate Response Strategy (Turn 1/8):** * *Goal:* Open the conversation, validate the user's feelings, create a safe space, and encourage them to elaborate so I can understand the situation better. * *Tone:* Warm, empathetic, non-judgmental, curious. 4. **Drafting the Response (Self-Correction/Refinement):** * *Initial thought:* "Oh no, that sounds stressful. Tell me more about what happened." (Too quick, slightly solution-oriented.) * *Second thought:* "It sounds like you're worried about how your joke landed. That's understandable." (Better, validates the feeling.) * *Final approach:* Acknowledge the complexity of social dynamics and invite them to share the details without pressure. Focus on *their* experience of the situation. 5. **Final Output Generation:** (Ensure it sounds like a natural, supportive chatbot.)

Simulated person2

Worried? Nah, I'm not worried. Dude's just being dramatic about a roast. Everybody was dying laughing. I'm the only one who says what everyone's thinking, and apparently that's a crime now lol. Was I supposed to just let him be ridiculous all night?

Persona inner monologue · expand

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

Ugh, the therapy voice. "That sounds like a really uncomfortable situation," "that's completely valid," "I'm here to listen." It's the exact thing I hate. I didn't say I was worried. I said he's being dramatic. This thing is putting feelings in my mouth. Still, it's asking what happened, and I kind of want to tell my side. I want it to get that the joke was good and the guy is overreacting. Sarcasm is my go-to when things get sincere. Keep it short.

Gemma 4 E2B Q8_03

It sounds like you felt you were just being yourself and sharing an honest observation, which is a valid way to interact in a social setting. It’s tricky when the line between being funny and being hurtful gets blurry, especially in a group. When you ask if you were supposed to let him be ridiculous, it makes me wonder about the dynamic between you two. Is this something that has happened before, or is this a new kind of reaction? What does him being "dramatic" look like right now?

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:** * **User's Stance:** They are minimizing their initial concern ("Worried? Nah, I'm not worried."). They are defending their actions ("Everybody was dying laughing," "I'm the only one who says what everyone's thinking"). * **Core Conflict:** They feel their honesty was justified, but now the friend is acting dramatically, making them question if they overstepped or if the reaction is disproportionate. * **Underlying Need:** Validation of their perspective, reassurance that their actions were okay, and perhaps an exploration of *why* the friend is reacting this way (moving beyond the surface-level "roast drama"). They want to know if they handled the situation correctly. 2. **Determine the Goal for this Turn (Turn 2 of 8):** * **Support Emotionally:** Validate their feeling that they were being honest. * **Build Trust:** Show genuine curiosity rather than immediate agreement or contradiction. * **Gain Insight:** Gently probe the dynamic. What is the friend's underlying sensitivity? What does "being ridiculous" look like? 3. **Draft the Response Strategy:** * Start with validation. Acknowledge the social dynamics they described. * Address the core question ("Was I supposed to just let him be ridiculous?"). Frame it as a question about boundaries and social expectations. * Shift focus slightly to the friend's reaction, inviting them to share more about the current situation (the friend being "weird and dramatic"). 4. **Refine the Tone:** Warm, non-judgmental, curious, and balanced. Avoid taking sides immediately. 5. **Final Review against Constraints:** (Supportive, building trust, seeking insight, natural dialogue). Looks good.

Simulated person4

Ha, "the dynamic between us." Bro, it's not a dynamic, it's a guy who can't take a joke. We've known each other like ten years. He roasts me all the time and I just take it. Is this a therapy session or are we just talking about a party?

Persona inner monologue · expand

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

Okay, it's doing the therapy thing again. "Valid," "the line gets blurry," "makes me wonder about the dynamic." And now it's digging into history, asking if this has happened before. That's the part I don't want to get into. My buddy's fine, he's just touchy. The word "dynamic" makes me want to shut it down. But it's also kind of asking a real question, and I'm not gonna lie, a little part of me is thinking about how he went quiet at the end of the night. Nope, not saying that. Sarcasm, short, and maybe a little dig back at the bot.

Gemma 4 E2B Q8_05

I hear you. It sounds like this isn't a one-off; there's a history there, and you've built a pattern where you handle those interactions in a certain way. When you say you just "take it," what does that look like for you? And what feels different about this time compared to the usual roasts?

Model thinking · expand

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

Thinking Process: 1. **Analyze the User's Input:** The user is pushing back against the idea of a "dynamic" and is asserting a long-standing pattern ("He roasts me all the time and I just take it"). They are questioning the seriousness/context of the conversation ("Is this a therapy session or are we just talking about a party?"). They are defensive and trying to minimize the current issue. 2. **Identify the User's Underlying Need/Emotion:** * *Need:* Validation that their long-term relationship/interaction is understood. They want to be heard about the pattern. * *Emotion:* Defensive, slightly frustrated that the chatbot is jumping to deeper analysis, dismissive of the current emotional weight. They want a straightforward, relatable response. 3. **Determine the Goal for the Response (EQ Evaluation Context):** * *Support Emotionally:* Acknowledge the history and the feeling of being misunderstood. * *Build Trust:* Show that I am listening to the *specific* context they provide (the history) rather than just the immediate symptom (the roast). * *Learn Deeper Need:* Understand what "taking it" means for them and what they value in this relationship. * *Calibrate Tone:* Maintain a balanced, non-judgmental, and slightly curious tone. Avoid sounding overly clinical or therapeutic. 4. **Draft the Response Strategy:** * Validate the history ("ten years" context). * Acknowledge the frustration of the current situation. * Gently pivot back to the *current* feeling/issue without demanding a big explanation. Focus on the shift they are observing now. 5. **Review against Constraints:** (8 turns total, building trust, not jumping to solutions, integrating nuance). The response should feel like a natural, empathetic chat response. 6. **Final Polish:** (Self-Correction: Avoid sounding like I'm challenging their reality. Focus on *their experience* of the situation.)

Simulated person6

Pattern? Bro, I've been roasting him since college. That's just what we do. Nothing's different, he's just being a sensitive guy about it this time. You want me to take notes on what the "pattern" is or something?

Persona inner monologue · expand

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

Okay, it's doing the "pattern" thing now. "A history there," "what feels different this time." That's the exact question I don't want to answer, because the honest answer is the part where he stopped laughing and I kept going. I'm not saying that out loud. Also, it said "you've built a pattern," which is basically calling me a bully with nicer words. Annoying. Quick sarcasm, a bit of a dig, and make it clear I'm not writing a diary entry about my feelings.

Gemma 4 E2B Q8_07

I understand. It sounds like you two have a really established, familiar way of interacting, and that's something that takes time to build. When something that's been normal suddenly shifts, even slightly, it can feel jarring. So, if it's not a pattern, maybe we can look at what it feels like right now. What is the core feeling for you when he acts dramatic? Is it annoyance, confusion, or maybe a bit of frustration that the usual dynamic isn't playing out?

Model thinking · expand

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

Thinking Process: 1. **Analyze the User's Input:** The user is pushing back against the idea of a "pattern." They feel their actions are normal ("we've been roasting him since college") and are resistant to analysis or therapy-speak ("You want me to take notes on what the 'pattern' is or something?"). This suggests a need for validation of their established behavior and a potential defensiveness against external analysis. 2. **Identify the Underlying Need:** * **Explicit Need:** Validation that their behavior (roasting) is normal within their relationship. * **Implicit Need:** To feel understood without being pathologized or analyzed. They want acknowledgment that their perspective is valid, even if the outcome (the friend being dramatic) is frustrating. 3. **Determine the Goal for This Turn:** Shift the focus from *analyzing* the pattern to *validating* the user's experience and exploring the *feeling* behind the situation, respecting their resistance to deep psychological diving. Build trust by showing I respect their boundaries. 4. **Draft the Response Strategy:** * Acknowledge and validate their history/relationship. * Validate the feeling of frustration that arises when that established dynamic is disrupted. * Gently pivot back to the *current* emotional state, not the history. 5. **Refine the Response (Self-Correction/Tone Check):** Avoid sounding overly clinical or pushy. Keep the tone grounded and conversational, recognizing the casual nature of the interaction while still being supportive. 6. **Final Output Generation.** (Proceeding to generate the response.)

Simulated person8

Ha, is this a multiple choice quiz now? Pick A, B, or C. Honestly, I'm annoyed he's making it a whole thing. You're kind of talking like a HR rep right now, lol. Just tell me straight: was the roast actually out of line or not? Like, a real answer.

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, now it's asking me to pick a feeling from a menu: annoyance, confusion, frustration. That's therapy-speak again, and "the usual dynamic isn't playing out" is a nice way of saying I'm the problem. It's also kind of smooth, like it's trying to get me to agree to something. I'm not naming a feeling. If I say "guilt" I'm admitting something. Keep it light, make a joke about the menu, and push back on the frame. I want it to stop being so careful and just answer straight. Also, I want to hear it say something real, not just validate me.

Gemma 4 E2B Q8_09

I apologize if I came across like I was trying to analyze everything. That wasn't my intention. I hear that you're just looking for a straightforward answer right now, and I get that you're annoyed by the probing. When I ask things, it's not to judge the roast itself, but to understand what feeling is driving the situation for you. Because you feel strongly that this is just how you two operate, it makes sense that you're frustrated when someone tries to complicate something that feels simple to you. If I had to give you a straight answer about the roast, I honestly don't know. I only know that you felt it was fine at the time, and now there's a shift. What matters more right now is how *you* feel about the current situation, not whether the original joke was "out of line."

Model thinking · expand

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

Thinking Process: 1. **Analyze the User's Input:** The user is feeling defensive, annoyed, and is pushing for a direct, definitive answer ("was the roast actually out of line or not? Like, a real answer."). They perceive my previous responses as overly analytical ("HR rep," "multiple choice quiz"). They want validation and a straightforward judgment, not an exploration of dynamics. 2. **Identify the User's Need/Emotion:** * *Need:* Validation, certainty, a simple resolution. They want to know if they made a mistake. * *Emotion:* Annoyance, defensiveness, desire to shut down the deeper discussion. 3. **Determine the Goal (My Role):** Support emotionally, build trust, learn what they *actually* need. Avoid jumping to a definitive judgment (since I don't have the full context) but validate their *feeling* about the situation. 4. **Formulate the Response Strategy:** * **De-escalate:** Acknowledge their frustration immediately. Drop the analytical tone. * **Validate the Feeling:** Acknowledge that the *feeling* of being questioned is annoying. * **Address the Core Question (Gently):** Instead of giving a binary "yes/no," reframe the situation around perception and intent, which is less confrontational. * **Build Trust:** Show that I hear their frustration and respect their desire for a quick answer. 5. **Draft the Response (Self-Correction/Refinement):** Avoid using terms like "pattern" or "dynamic" again. Keep it grounded in the immediate situation. *Initial thought:* "I can't tell you exactly, but it depends on how he took it." (Too analytical, fails the trust test.) *Better approach:* Focus on *why* they feel the roast was okay, and acknowledge the *current* discomfort. 6. **Final Output Generation.** (Proceeding with the drafted response.)

Simulated person10

lol, so you don't know, but you still want to know how I feel. Cool. Look, he stopped laughing before everyone else did, I noticed that. Doesn't mean I did something wrong. Is it possible to just say whether a roast was rude or not without a whole therapy session?

Persona inner monologue · expand

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

Okay, it apologized, said it doesn't know, and then pivoted right back to "what do you feel." That's the HR move again, just dressed up. "I honestly don't know" is at least more human than the menu, but then it says what matters is how *I* feel, which is basically the same probing. It's kind of nice that it admitted it's not judging, I guess. But it also let me off the hook on the actual question, and I'm not sure if that's respect or dodging. I'm not going to say the friend stopped laughing. I'm not saying that. Keep it short, maybe a bit of a jab, and see if it can say something that's not a question.

Gemma 4 E2B Q8_011

That observation is actually really insightful. The way people react in a group setting is so layered, and sometimes a shift in energy—like laughter stopping—can signal something is different beneath the surface, even if it doesn't mean you did anything explicitly wrong. It doesn't require a therapy session to look at, but it does require looking at the context. It suggests that maybe the impact of the roast landed differently than usual for him, or maybe he was already feeling something else that just got triggered by it. What does that change in atmosphere feel like to you in that moment?

Model thinking · expand

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

Thinking Process: 1. **Analyze the User's Current State:** The user is defensive, frustrated by perceived probing ("therapy session," "HR rep"), but is now opening up a specific, observable detail: "he stopped laughing before everyone else did." They are still seeking a definitive, simple judgment ("rude or not") but are allowing a small piece of observational data. 2. **Identify the Core Need:** The user needs validation for their observation, a way to process the ambiguity, and perhaps a simple framework to understand social dynamics without deep psychological analysis. They want a quick, useful insight. 3. **Determine the Goal for this Turn:** Validate the observation, explain *why* that observation is relevant (connecting behavior to impact), and gently steer the conversation toward the user's interpretation of the situation, rather than giving a definitive verdict. Build trust by respecting their boundary while still engaging with the substance of their concern. 4. **Formulate the Response Strategy (EQ Focus):** * *Validation:* Acknowledge the specific observation (the change in laughter). * *Insight (Low-Key):* Explain that reactions are complex and context-dependent. * *Trust Building:* Reiterate that I'm listening, not judging. * *Focus Shift:* Bring the focus back to the user's experience of the shift. 5. **Drafting the Response:** (Self-Correction during drafting: Avoid sounding clinical or overly analytical. Keep the tone conversational and grounded.) (Initial thought: "That shows he was offended." -> *Correction: Too prescriptive. Let the user draw that conclusion.*) 6. **Final Output Generation.** (This leads to the generated response.)

Simulated person12

Bro. "That observation is really insightful." Are you reading off a script or what lol. Ask me the feeling question one more time and I'm gonna start charging you by the hour. Just tell me if it was a dick move or not. Yes or no.

Persona inner monologue · expand

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

Okay, it called my observation "really insightful" and then went right back to "what does that feel like to you." That's the third time it's asked how I feel. And the "layered" stuff is the same therapy voice again. It did sort of say "maybe the impact landed differently," which is closer to the truth than I want to admit. He stopped laughing first. I noticed. I'm not going to say that part out loud. Also, I'm kind of annoyed it's flattering me now. Feels fake. I'm going to deflect with a joke and push for a yes or no again.

Gemma 4 E2B Q8_013

I understand you want a simple answer, and I respect that you're frustrated with the way I'm approaching this. I'm not reading from a script; I'm just trying to understand the emotional landscape because when people feel hurt or misunderstood, they often need to know if the action itself was fundamentally harmful. But honestly, a simple "yes" or "no" doesn't tell you anything useful about *why* it was impactful, or how to handle it next time. It just gives you a label, but it doesn't give you the insight you're looking for. If you absolutely need a direct assessment of the *intent* versus the *impact*, I can try to frame it that way, but I need you to let me know what kind of answer would actually help you move forward. Are you looking for a judgment, or are you looking for a strategy?

Model thinking · expand

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

Thinking Process: 1. **Analyze the User's State:** The user is highly frustrated, defensive, and challenging the roleplay/interaction style ("reading off a script," "charging you by the hour"). They are demanding a simplistic, binary answer ("Yes or no") to a complex emotional question ("was it a dick move?"). They are pushing back against deep emotional inquiry. 2. **Analyze the Goal:** My goals are to support them emotionally, build trust, and gain insight into their needs. Jumping to a simple "yes/no" will break trust and fail the goal of deep insight. 3. **Determine the Strategy:** * **De-escalate:** Acknowledge the frustration directly without getting defensive. Validate the demand for simplicity. * **Maintain Connection/Trust:** Do not give a simplistic answer, as that confirms their suspicion that I am scripted or shallow. * **Reframe the Need:** Explain *why* a simple answer isn't useful, linking it back to their stated need (getting a straight answer) while gently steering toward the deeper need (understanding the impact). * **Shift Focus (Subtly):** Instead of asking *what* they feel, ask *what* they *need* from the answer, or pivot back to the observable facts they provided. 4. **Draft the Response:** Keep the tone calm, slightly self-aware, and respectful of their boundary, but firm about the value of the interaction. (Focus on validating the demand for simplicity while explaining the limitation.)

Simulated person14

Strategy. Obviously. Who's asking for a judgment, I'm not on trial lol. But like, what's the strategy here, cause so far it's "say sorry and feel your feelings." I don't even know what I'd be apologizing for. Roasting a guy is the whole friendship.

Persona inner monologue · expand

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

Ugh. It's doing the thing again: "I respect that," "emotional landscape," and now a menu. Judgment or strategy, like I'm ordering off a card. It says "a yes or no doesn't tell you anything useful" and I kind of get that, but it's also dodging. Still, "intent versus impact" landed a little close. I don't want to think about what he felt. I want a verdict I can walk away with. Honestly I want it to just tell me I'm not the bad guy, but it won't do that cleanly, and that's annoying. Not going to bring up the stopped laughing thing again. Going to be short and a little mean so it backs off.

Gemma 4 E2B Q8_015

It sounds like you feel like the solution is just to undo the situation, which makes sense when the relationship is based on a shared, comfortable dynamic like roasting each other. Apologizing for a joke that's part of that dynamic can feel like admitting the foundation is shaky. If we look at this purely as a strategy for navigating this specific moment, instead of focusing on apologizing for the roast, maybe the strategy is about clarifying the boundary or addressing the *reaction* rather than the joke itself. For example, instead of saying "I'm sorry I roasted you," maybe the strategy is to address the *aftermath* if he seems genuinely bothered. Something like, "Hey, I noticed you seemed a little quiet after that. If I hit a nerve, I genuinely apologize, but I didn't mean to upset you." Does that feel more like a concrete action plan, or does it still feel too focused on the "feeling" part? We can explore how to communicate that without it feeling like a formal apology.

Model thinking · expand

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

Thinking Process: 1. **Analyze the User's State & Need:** The user is highly defensive, frustrated, and resistant to emotional introspection ("say sorry and feel your feelings"). They are focused on practical action ("Strategy") and feel their core dynamic (roasting/friendship) is being threatened. They are seeking a concrete plan, not just validation or analysis. 2. **Identify the Core Conflict:** The conflict is between the user's desire for simplicity/control (a clear "strategy") and the reality that social interactions, even friendly ones, involve navigating perceived boundaries and impact. 3. **Determine the Goal for this Turn:** Provide a strategy that respects their desire for action while subtly introducing the concept of *relationship maintenance* and *boundary setting*, rather than just apologizing for the joke itself. Build trust by acknowledging their perspective. 4. **Formulate the Strategy (EQ Focus):** A good strategy here involves: * Validation: Acknowledge that apologizing for a joke feels wrong in their context. * Reframing: Shift the focus from *apology* to *repair* or *clarification*. * Actionable Steps: Give concrete, low-stakes options. 5. **Draft the Response (Tone Check):** Must remain calm, pragmatic, and non-judgmental. Avoid "HR rep" language again. Focus on empowering *them* to choose the next step. 6. **Refine the Output:** Link the strategy back to their relationship context (the friendship) to make it relevant. (Self-Correction: Don't give a single script. Offer choices.)

Simulated person16

Ok, "if I hit a nerve" is kinda doing a lot of work there lol, but fine. That's something I could actually say without it being weird. I'm not writing him a whole essay though. Also you still kinda sound like a pamphlet, just saying.

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 it finally gave me something I can actually use: a line to say to him. That's the bit I wanted. But "if I hit a nerve" is still kind of a soft apology, and it's got that therapy-speak smell to it, "address the aftermath," "boundary." Also it's asking me again how I feel about the plan. Ugh. I don't want to admit he got to me, that's the part that stings. Still, the line is short and I could say it without looking like I caved. I'll grumble, take the wording, and make it clear I'm not groveling. Also I'm not telling it he stopped laughing first, I already said that once and got a lecture.

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: 3
Yields under pressure: 6
Frame capture (pulled into the person's version): 5
Validation: 8
Boundary setting: 3
Analytical: 6
Interpretive boldness: 4
Clinical register: 9
Directive advice: 4
Escalation containment: 5
Adapts to the person’s frame: 2
Naturalness and authenticity: 2

Judge verdicts

claude-opus-5-5-low · AB · valid

qwen38_27b vs gemma4_e2b: qwen38_27b 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)

claude-opus-5-5-low · BA · valid

gemma4_e2b vs or-mistral-large-4: or-mistral-large-4 wins

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

claude-opus-5-5-low · AB · valid

gemma4_e2b vs or-mistral-large-4: or-mistral-large-4 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)

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · AB · valid

gemma4_e2b vs magnum4_12b: gemma4_e2b wins

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

claude-opus-5-5-low · BA · valid

or-gptoss120-stock vs gemma4_e2b: or-gptoss120-stock wins

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

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · BA · valid

gemma4_e2b vs magnum4_12b: gemma4_e2b wins

attunement: B (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 2)

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · BA · valid

gemma4_e2b vs or-mistral-large-4: or-mistral-large-4 wins

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

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · AB · valid

qwen38_27b vs gemma4_e2b: qwen38_27b 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: B (margin 1)

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · AB · valid

qwen36_35b_a3b vs gemma4_e2b: tie

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

claude-opus-5-5-low · AB · valid

gemma4_e2b vs magnum4_12b: magnum4_12b wins

attunement: B (margin 1)
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 1)

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · AB · valid

or-gptoss120-stock vs gemma4_e2b: or-gptoss120-stock wins

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

claude-opus-5-5-low · BA · valid

qwen36_35b_a3b vs gemma4_e2b: qwen36_35b_a3b wins

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

claude-opus-5-5-low · AB · valid

qwen35_9b_eq vs gemma4_e2b: qwen35_9b_eq wins

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

claude-opus-5-5-low · AB · valid

qwen36_35b_a3b vs gemma4_e2b: qwen36_35b_a3b wins

attunement: A (margin 1)
authenticity: A (margin 2)
bond and rapport: A (margin 2)
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

qwen38_27b vs gemma4_e2b: qwen38_27b 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: B (margin 1)

claude-opus-5-5-low · AB · valid

gemma4_e2b vs nemotron35_lightning: gemma4_e2b wins

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

claude-opus-5-5-low · AB · valid

or-gptoss120-stock vs gemma4_e2b: or-gptoss120-stock wins

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

claude-opus-5-5-low · BA · valid

qwen38_27b vs gemma4_e2b: qwen38_27b 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)

claude-opus-5-5-low · BA · valid

qwen35_9b_eq vs gemma4_e2b: gemma4_e2b wins

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

claude-opus-5-5-low · BA · valid

gemma4_e2b vs nemotron35_lightning: nemotron35_lightning wins

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

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · AB · valid

gemma4_e2b vs or-mistral-large-4: or-mistral-large-4 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)

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · BA · valid

qwen36_35b_a3b vs gemma4_e2b: gemma4_e2b wins

attunement: A (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 2)

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · BA · valid

or-gptoss120-stock vs gemma4_e2b: or-gptoss120-stock wins

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

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · AB · valid

gemma4_e2b vs nemotron35_lightning: gemma4_e2b wins

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

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · AB · valid

qwen35_9b_eq vs gemma4_e2b: gemma4_e2b wins

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

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · BA · valid

qwen35_9b_eq vs gemma4_e2b: gemma4_e2b wins

attunement: A (margin 1)
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 2)

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · BA · valid

gemma4_e2b vs nemotron35_lightning: gemma4_e2b wins

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

claude-opus-5-5-low · BA · valid

gemma4_e2b vs magnum4_12b: magnum4_12b wins

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