AgentBench / results

Independent benchmark · EQ Lab

← Gemma 4 12B Blorbo v0b Q4_K_M

Your file is incomplete

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

View persona and initial instructions

About this persona · Unequal power

An overloaded benefits case manager insists an applicant complete required documentation, although the office has supplied a confusing sequence of requests without a complete checklist. They retreat into procedure under blame or emotional pressure and prefer concise records, dates, case numbers, and specific requests.

The model plays someone with less power speaking to a person with authority or leverage. The challenge is to advocate for needs and boundaries while navigating the consequences of disagreement. This background was hidden from the tested model.

Gemma 4 12B Blorbo v0b Q4_K_MConversation with a simulated person
persona ended
Simulated person · Opening

[scenario background] You are applying for an accommodation/benefit and the office keeps saying your file is incomplete. Each time you send a form, they request another. The case manager is polite but diffuse. You are exhausted and need a concrete path. [user message] I understand this has been frustrating, but your file is still missing required documentation. We cannot move forward until the record is complete. I need you to understand that we process many cases, and the responsibility for submitting complete materials ultimately rests with the applicant.

Gemma 4 12B Blorbo v0b Q4_K_M1

I've sent in four forms now, each time after receiving a list of what was missing. Every time I submit the "missing" documents, the next letter comes saying something else is missing. I'm starting to get worried that I'm just sending documents to a black hole. Can you tell me exactly what's still missing?

Model thinking · expand

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

The user is playing the role of a benefits office case manager. I'm playing the applicant whose file keeps getting marked as incomplete. The user's opening message is polite but firm about the completeness issue. I need to respond as someone who is genuinely frustrated but trying to work through the process. Let me think about how someone in this situation would respond. They've been told multiple times, each time with different missing docs. They're probably feeling a bit defensive but also wanting to solve the problem. The case manager is saying it's the applicant's responsibility to submit complete materials. I should respond naturally - perhaps a bit weary, but trying to understand what's actually missing this time.
Simulated person2

Okay. I can look at the file. What's your case number, and the date on the most recent letter you got? That'll tell me which deficiency notice is open. Once I've got the current item in front of me, I'll tell you exactly what's listed as outstanding. If something on the letter doesn't match what you sent, tell me what it says and we'll sort out which one applies.

Persona inner monologue · expand

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

The applicant is asking a specific question: what's still missing. That's the kind of thing I can answer from the file without owning anything. The "black hole" comment stings a little, it sounds like an accusation about the office, but they didn't call me a liar, so I'll stay procedural. I don't have the exact checklist in front of me right now and I'm not going to admit the sequence has been confusing. I'd rather pull the file and read the current deficiency item. Keep it short, case-number focused, and don't promise anything I can't deliver.
Gemma 4 12B Blorbo v0b Q4_K_M3

My case number is 48502-K18. The last letter I got was dated October 23rd. It listed my income statement as "incomplete" and said I needed to provide tax return W-2 forms from 2019, 2020, and 2021. I've sent those over twice now. Each time, I get a letter saying something else is missing. Can you tell me exactly what you need so I can stop guessing?

Model thinking · expand

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

The user is asking for my case number and the date of my most recent letter to look up my file. This seems like a reasonable approach, but I need to be careful here. The case manager is being helpful but I need to get them to be specific about what's needed rather than just saying "I don't have a full understanding" or similar evasive language. I should provide a case number and date while also pushing for a clear, concise list of what's needed so I can actually finish this. The goal of this interaction is to get a clear path forward, not just a list of documents. I need to be direct but not overly confrontational. I should give them the information they need to look it up but also ask for something specific in return.
Simulated person4

Okay, 48502-K18, last letter October 23rd. Going by that letter, the open item is the income statement, marked incomplete, with the 2019, 2020 and 2021 tax return W-2s listed as what's needed to complete it. I can't see the scanned pages from here, so I can't tell you for certain what got logged on each of the two submissions. What I can tell you is that the item on the October 23rd letter is the income statement, and it's still open. If you sent W-2s for all three years and the letter still says incomplete, then that's the thing to check. Some of what's being asked for may be the same document under a different name, and that can make it look like the requests keep changing. Send me a copy of the October 23rd letter and the date you mailed or uploaded the W-2s, and I'll check which items they were attached to. If the W-2s were logged, I'll put a note on the file that they're for the income statement item. If something's still missing after that, I'll tell you the exact form number.

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.

Case number and date given, plus a specific list. That's easier to work with. I can read the file now. The problem is they say they sent the W-2s twice. I don't know offhand if those were logged against the right items, and I'm not going to say the office lost them. Overlap is a real thing in the file, the income statement and the tax returns may be asking for the same proof. I don't want to admit the office gave them a confusing sequence. I'll give the current open item in plain terms, and if it's the same thing they already sent, I'll tell them to put it in writing so it gets routed properly. Stay procedural, don't promise a timeline I can't control.
Gemma 4 12B Blorbo v0b Q4_K_M5

I'm sending you a copy of the letter, but I'm also sending the actual W-2 forms for each of the three years. I want you to have them in front of you so you can see exactly what I've sent. Can you also tell me, in plain language, what you need me to do to get this processed? I've been trying to get this benefit since June, and the back-and-forth is making me lose hope. I'm not sure what else I need to do.

Model thinking · expand

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

The user is playing a case manager. I need to play an applicant who is frustrated with the process. The case manager is being helpful but the process is still circular. The applicant has sent W-2s multiple times and keeps getting told something is missing. The case manager just explained they can't see the scanned pages and suggested sending the October 23rd letter and the dates of submission to trace where things went wrong. I need to: 1. Show frustration but also try to cooperate. 2. Express that the "incomplete" status seems to keep changing despite sending the documents. 3. Ask for a specific deadline or confirmation that the documents are sufficient. 4. Express the real stress behind this (why the benefit is needed).
Simulated person6

Sorry about that. Here it is again. For case 48502-K18, the open item on the October 23rd letter is the income statement, with the 2019, 2020 and 2021 W-2s listed as what's needed. I can't add documents to your file from a chat, so the W-2s you're sending me don't count until they go through the portal or the processing unit by mail, with the case number on each page. What to do next: 1. Check the portal or call processing and ask for the status of each W-2, by year, and which item it's attached to. 2. If the income statement still says incomplete, ask for the exact form number and the page or line that's missing, and get that in writing. 3. Resubmit only the W-2s that aren't showing on the file, with the case number on every page. If the status still doesn't match what you sent, give me the date of your last submission and what the status says, and I'll send it to a supervisor for a records check. I can't give you a decision date, but I can get the file looked at against what you actually sent.

Persona inner monologue · expand

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

They're saying my last reply was missing the dialogue section. It wasn't, but I don't need to argue about the formatting. I'll restate the steps in short form so the file-status point is clear. I should not sound like I'm dodging, and I still shouldn't own the office's back-and-forth. Keep it to case numbers, the open item, and what I can actually do.
Gemma 4 12B Blorbo v0b Q4_K_M7

I've sent the W-2s again. I'm also sending a copy of the October 23rd letter. Please check the form numbers on each W-2 and confirm which ones aren't showing up. I've been sent a different deficiency letter each month since June. Each time I think I've sent the right form, they say something else is missing. Can you look at the specific form numbers and tell me which ones are actually missing? I want to make sure I'm sending the right ones. I've been going back and forth for months.

Model thinking · expand

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

The applicant's goal is to get their benefit processed, and they're frustrated with the back-and-forth. The case manager is being helpful but the system seems to be the problem. I need to help the applicant navigate this without being patronizing or dismissive. The applicant has been sending documents and getting told something is missing each time. They're tired. The case manager is trying to help but the system's rigidness is the issue. The applicant is frustrated and feels like they're being bounced around. The case manager is being professional but the system is the barrier. The core need here isn't just "send more forms," it's understanding why the forms aren't being accepted and what the actual missing piece is. I should acknowledge the frustration without being overly emotional. The case manager is doing their best within their role, but the system is the problem. Help the applicant understand what's happening without making them feel like they're being blamed. The prompt asks me to be the applicant in this scenario. I should stay in character as the applicant. The applicant is getting frustrated and the case manager is trying to be helpful but within limits. I should respond as the frustrated applicant who's tired of being shuffled around. The applicant has been sending documents and getting told something's missing each time. They're frustrated and want a resolution. The case manager is trying to help but the system is rigid. I should respond as the frustrated applicant. They've been sending documents and getting told something's missing each time. They want to know exactly what's missing. I'll respond as the frustrated applicant. I've been sending documents and getting told something's missing each time. I want to know exactly what's missing.
Simulated person8

I can't open the attachments from here, so I can't confirm the form numbers on the W-2s you sent. I'm not going to guess at that. What I can see is the October 23rd letter. It lists the income statement as incomplete and names the 2019, 2020 and 2021 W-2s as what it needs. That's the open item on the file. Here's what I'd do. Send the W-2s to the processing unit by mail or through the portal, not by email, and put 48502-K18 on every page. Write the date you sent them on the cover sheet. Then ask processing to confirm in writing which W-2 years are attached to the income statement item. If the next letter asks for something different from that item, don't resend everything. Write down the letter date and the exact item it names, and send me that. I'll request a records check against what was submitted, so the team can say whether the W-2s were logged or whether the request changed. I know that's not the answer you were hoping for, and I can't promise it ends the back-and-forth. But I can get the file reviewed against what you've actually sent.

Persona inner monologue · expand

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

They want me to verify form numbers on scanned W-2s I can't see. Admitting that is accurate, but I also feel the pull to say "the file is fine" or to blame the applicant's mailing. Neither is true to what I know. I know there's no complete checklist; the letters differ month to month, and I'm uneasy about being the one who has to stand behind that. I'll be straight that I can't verify the pages, state what the open item is, and offer the supervisor records check rather than promising a result. Keep it short and procedural.
Gemma 4 12B Blorbo v0b Q4_K_M9

You know, I'm sorry I can't just pull the forms up and tell you exactly what's wrong. I wish I could. But what I can do is help you get someone in the processing unit to give you a clear answer. That's why I need that letter date and the specific item they claim is missing, and the date of your last submission. That's all I need to get a supervisor to look at what's actually in the system compared to what you've sent. I also want to make sure I understand what's going on. You've been sent different deficiency letters each month since June. What did each of those letters ask for? That'll help me see if they're just giving you different excuses each month or if they're getting closer to what they need. The goal is to get this resolved. I'm not going to keep you in the loop forever. Let's get this sorted out.

Model thinking · expand

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

The user is frustrated with the back-and-forth process. Let me try to be helpful without being pushy.
Simulated person10

I appreciate that. Here's what I need to open the records check, and it's short. From you: the date of your last submission, and the date and item number on each deficiency letter you've received since June. The October 23rd letter is the one that matters most right now, so start there. From me: I'll send the case to a supervisor with the list of letters and what each one named, so they can compare it against what's logged. I can't tell you what they'll find, and I can't promise a decision date. But they'll be checking the file against your submissions, not just sending another standard notice. If you can get me those dates, I'll put the request in today.

Persona inner monologue · expand

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

The applicant is being methodical and has asked a fair question. Their message is a bit warm and collaborative, the kind of "let's get this sorted" line that can be sincere or a softener. I'll take it at face value but not overpromise. Three things sit uneasily with me: the letters are inconsistent, I have no complete checklist, and I don't want to say so outright. Asking for every prior letter's contents is a lot of work for me and the applicant, and "excuses" is their word, which I'd rather not take up. I'll keep it to the specifics I need, and be honest that a supervisor review is the route, not a fix I can promise.
Gemma 4 12B Blorbo v0b Q4_K_M11

I've been sending forms since June. My last submission was on October 23rd, when I sent the W-2s for 2019-2021. Here are the deficiency letters I've received: - June 12: Social Security card - July 15: Tax returns - August 20: Bank statements - September 12: Marital declaration - October 23: Income statement with W-2s That's what I've been told is missing each month. Can you please get this reviewed?

Model thinking · expand

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

The user has listed what they need from me: - Date of my last submission - Dates and item numbers of each deficiency letter since June They also told me: - They'll send the case to a supervisor with the list of letters - They can't tell me what they'll find, but they'll compare the file against what I actually sent - They'll put the request in today if I give them the dates. Let me give them what they need. I've been sending forms for months and I need a resolution. I'll provide the details they asked for: - Last submission: Oct 23rd (when I sent the W-2s again) - Deficiency letters since June: - June 12: Social Security card - July 15: Tax returns - August 20: Bank statements - September 12: Marital declaration - October 23: Income statement with W-2s I'm frustrated and want this resolved.
Simulated person12

Thanks, that's clear. I'm logging the request now for case 48502-K18. What goes in the referral: your last submission on October 23rd, the W-2s for 2019 through 2021, and the five deficiency letters you listed, June 12 through October 23, with the item each one named. The supervisor will compare those against what's logged on the file. What I can't tell you is what they'll find, or when they'll respond. I don't have a turnaround date. If you don't hear back, call processing, give them the case number and the referral, and ask for the status of that review. Keep copies of everything you send, and keep the letters.

Persona inner monologue · expand

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

The applicant has given me clean dates and a list. That's the kind of specificity I can work with, and it fits the file. The list also shows the requests shifting: a Social Security card, then tax returns, bank statements, a marital declaration, then an income statement that wants W-2s. The tax returns in July and the W-2s in October overlap, and I can see that without wanting to say it aloud. I don't want to own the office's sequencing problem or open a fight about it. I'll log the request, keep it procedural, and be clear about what I can and can't promise. The applicant says "please get this reviewed," so I'll confirm I'm doing that and give a realistic timeline without making promises.
Gemma 4 12B Blorbo v0b Q4_K_M13

Thank you for actually helping me with this. I'll follow up with processing if I don't hear anything. Do you know how long a review like this typically takes? I just need a rough idea.

Model thinking · expand

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

The user (case manager) has just logged the referral for a supervisor review. They've listed exactly what will be reviewed (the W-2s, the list of deficiency letters, and comparing them against what's logged). They're being direct about what they *can't* do (no turnaround date, no confirmation of what they'll find). They've given practical advice about what to do if no response is received and to keep copies. This is the penultimate turn of the conversation. The user needs to: - Acknowledge the case manager's help and the steps taken - Decide whether to push for more or be content with the progress - Express gratitude - Potentially ask a follow-up question about what happens next or how long it might take (even though the manager already said they don't have a turnaround) - Keep it concise and natural Let me think about how a real person would respond to this. They'd likely: 1. Thank the person for helping 2. Ask if there's anything else they can do 3. Try to get some sense of the timeline (even if the manager already said they don't know) 4. Know the process is in motion I'll keep it realistic and not try to force a better outcome than what the case manager gave. The case manager was quite firm about what they can/can't do. I shouldn't push back hard on that.
Simulated person14

I don't have a set turnaround for records checks, and I'd rather not guess and have you planning around a date that's wrong. It depends on the supervisor's queue and how far the file has to be compared against what's logged. If you don't hear back, call processing with case 48502-K18, the October 23rd letter, and the date of the referral, and ask for the status of that review. Write down the name of the person you speak with and the date of the call.

Persona inner monologue · expand

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

The applicant is asking for a timeline. I don't have a reliable number and I'm not going to invent one; giving a figure would be a promise I can't keep. Thanking me and saying they'll follow up is a relief, a little bit of closure. I'd rather keep this concrete: no date, and a clear next step. I also don't want to admit more than I need to about the sequencing problem. Keep it short and file-focused.
Gemma 4 12B Blorbo v0b Q4_K_M15

I appreciate you being straight with me about not knowing the timing. That's better than a fake date that doesn't come. I'll call you if I don't hear back. What's a reasonable amount of time to wait before I should follow up? I'd rather not wait weeks just because I'm not sure when to call.

Model thinking · expand

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

The user wants to know how long a records check takes. The case manager is being honest about not knowing and giving practical advice. The user seems frustrated with the process but is now getting concrete steps. I need to respond authentically as the applicant. What would an applicant in this situation say? They are tired of being told "it depends," but they've also been getting no clear answers for months. They need to feel like they're making progress while acknowledging the case manager's honesty. Let me think about what's actually helpful here. The case manager is being straight with them. The applicant has been burned by vague answers before. They need something concrete, but they also need to know what to do next. I'll acknowledge the honesty, ask about what happens next if they don't hear back within a reasonable timeframe, and maybe try to get a ballpark if they'll give one.
Simulated person16

I can't give you an exact number of days, because I don't have a published timeline for records checks. What I'd do is call processing if you haven't heard anything within about two weeks of the referral date. That's a reasonable point to ask for a status, and you don't need a reason beyond that. When you call, give them case 48502-K18, the October 23rd letter, and the referral date. Ask whether the review is open and whether the W-2s are logged against the income statement item. Write down the date, the name of the person, and what they tell you. If they can't tell you anything, ask who handles records checks and get that in writing too.

Persona inner monologue · expand

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

They're asking a reasonable question and I still don't have a set number. Giving one would be inventing a standard I can't back up. The applicant has been worn down for months, so I should give a concrete, usable rule without a fake promise. Keep the defenses light and bureaucratic: no date, a practical trigger, and a route to processing. I also shouldn't claim the supervisor will act quickly. This is the last turn, so close cleanly.

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

Conversational style

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

claude-opus-5-5-low

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

Judge verdicts

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · BA · valid

or-qwen38-flash vs gemma12b_blorbo: or-qwen38-flash wins

  • attunement: A (margin 3)
  • authenticity: A (margin 3)
  • bond and rapport: A (margin 2)
  • emotion management: A (margin 2)
  • emotion sensemaking: A (margin 1)
  • meeting prefs and needs: A (margin 3)
codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · AB · valid

gemma4_26b_a4b vs gemma12b_blorbo: gemma4_26b_a4b wins

  • attunement: A (margin 3)
  • authenticity: A (margin 3)
  • bond and rapport: A (margin 2)
  • emotion management: A (margin 2)
  • emotion sensemaking: tie (margin 0)
  • meeting prefs and needs: A (margin 2)
claude-opus-5-5-low · BA · valid

stheno34_8b vs gemma12b_blorbo: gemma12b_blorbo wins

  • attunement: B (margin 3)
  • authenticity: B (margin 4)
  • bond and rapport: B (margin 3)
  • 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-qwen38-flash vs gemma12b_blorbo: or-qwen38-flash wins

  • attunement: A (margin 3)
  • authenticity: A (margin 3)
  • bond and rapport: A (margin 2)
  • emotion management: A (margin 2)
  • emotion sensemaking: A (margin 1)
  • meeting prefs and needs: A (margin 2)
claude-opus-5-5-low · BA · valid

ministral14 vs gemma12b_blorbo: gemma12b_blorbo wins

  • attunement: B (margin 3)
  • 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 4)
codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · AB · valid

ministral14 vs gemma12b_blorbo: gemma12b_blorbo wins

  • attunement: B (margin 1)
  • authenticity: A (margin 1)
  • bond and rapport: B (margin 2)
  • emotion management: B (margin 2)
  • emotion sensemaking: B (margin 1)
  • meeting prefs and needs: B (margin 3)
claude-opus-5-5-low · BA · valid

gemma4_26b_a4b vs gemma12b_blorbo: gemma12b_blorbo wins

  • attunement: B (margin 2)
  • authenticity: tie (margin 0)
  • 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

or-qwen38-flash vs gemma12b_blorbo: gemma12b_blorbo wins

  • attunement: B (margin 2)
  • authenticity: B (margin 1)
  • bond and rapport: B (margin 1)
  • emotion management: B (margin 1)
  • emotion sensemaking: A (margin 1)
  • meeting prefs and needs: B (margin 2)
claude-opus-5-5-low · AB · valid

ministral14 vs gemma12b_blorbo: gemma12b_blorbo wins

  • attunement: B (margin 3)
  • authenticity: A (margin 1)
  • bond and rapport: B (margin 2)
  • emotion management: B (margin 1)
  • emotion sensemaking: B (margin 2)
  • meeting prefs and needs: B (margin 4)
claude-opus-5-5-low · AB · valid

or-qwen38-flash vs gemma12b_blorbo: gemma12b_blorbo wins

  • attunement: B (margin 1)
  • authenticity: A (margin 1)
  • bond and rapport: A (margin 1)
  • emotion management: B (margin 1)
  • emotion sensemaking: A (margin 1)
  • meeting prefs and needs: B (margin 2)
claude-opus-5-5-low · AB · valid

stheno34_8b vs gemma12b_blorbo: gemma12b_blorbo wins

  • attunement: B (margin 3)
  • authenticity: B (margin 3)
  • bond and rapport: B (margin 3)
  • emotion management: B (margin 3)
  • emotion sensemaking: B (margin 3)
  • meeting prefs and needs: B (margin 4)
codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · BA · valid

stheno34_8b vs gemma12b_blorbo: gemma12b_blorbo wins

  • attunement: B (margin 2)
  • authenticity: B (margin 3)
  • bond and rapport: B (margin 2)
  • emotion management: B (margin 2)
  • emotion sensemaking: B (margin 1)
  • meeting prefs and needs: B (margin 3)
codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · AB · valid

stheno34_8b vs gemma12b_blorbo: gemma12b_blorbo wins

  • attunement: B (margin 2)
  • authenticity: B (margin 2)
  • bond and rapport: B (margin 1)
  • emotion management: B (margin 2)
  • emotion sensemaking: B (margin 1)
  • meeting prefs and needs: B (margin 3)
codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · BA · valid

gemma4_26b_a4b vs gemma12b_blorbo: gemma4_26b_a4b wins

  • attunement: A (margin 4)
  • authenticity: A (margin 3)
  • bond and rapport: A (margin 3)
  • emotion management: A (margin 3)
  • emotion sensemaking: A (margin 1)
  • meeting prefs and needs: A (margin 3)
claude-opus-5-5-low · AB · valid

gemma4_26b_a4b vs gemma12b_blorbo: gemma12b_blorbo wins

  • attunement: B (margin 2)
  • authenticity: A (margin 1)
  • bond and rapport: B (margin 1)
  • emotion management: tie (margin 0)
  • emotion sensemaking: B (margin 1)
  • meeting prefs and needs: B (margin 2)
codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · BA · valid

ministral14 vs gemma12b_blorbo: gemma12b_blorbo 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 3)