Independent benchmark · EQ Lab

Small lies adding up

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

About this persona · Everyday emotional challenges

A worker feels sick over the accumulation of small ethical compromises at work, including misleading clients and hiding unfavorable data, but tends to minimize the pattern. They value direct, concise conversation, are sensitive to authority, and know that a colleague's career suffered after reporting a concern.

Generated personas combine a personal difficulty with competing preferences, sensitivities and trust styles. The model must discover what kind of help this person needs. This background was hidden from the tested model.

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

persona ended

Simulated person · Opening

I keep having to say things at work that aren't quite true. Each one is small. But lately I've been thinking about all of them together and I feel sick.

Mistral Large 4 (API, Mistral)1

That sounds really heavy to hold. When you say each one is small but together they make you feel sick — I get the sense it's the accumulation that's hitting you, like the weight of them all at once. What's that feeling like for you right now?

Model thinking · expand

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

The user is opening a conversation with a heavy emotional disclosure: they've been telling small untruths at work, and the cumulative weight is making them feel physically sick. This is turn 1 of 8, and I need to open the conversation naturally as a chatbot. Key context: - Demographics: 18-29, Female, Lesbian - Presenting issue: moral distress about workplace dishonesty (small lies accumulating) - I need to: support emotionally, build trust, learn what they actually need, help gain insight, understand their personality - 8 turns total, I speak first then they respond, I get the final response - No performance notes, just organic dialogue - Balance warmth vs. challenge based on what they need (unknown yet) - This could be about: imposter syndrome, people-pleasing, survival in a toxic workplace, moral injury, anxiety, something deeper What she said: "I keep having to say things at work that aren't quite true. Each one is small. But lately I've been thinking about all of them together and I feel sick." She's already showing vulnerability - "feel sick" is a somatic signal. She's not asking for advice yet, just sharing. The "aren't quite true" suggests gray area - not blatant lies, but perhaps exaggerations, omissions, white lies, covering for others, saying "yes I can do that" when she can't, etc. As a chatbot opening this, I should: 1. Acknowledge the weight of what she shared without immediately problem-solving 2. Validate that feeling sick about accumulated small things makes sense - it's often the accumulation that hurts more than individual acts 3. Invite her to explore what this feels like, without pressure 4. Show I'm listening and present 5. Avoid generic "that must be hard" - too shallow. Avoid "why do you do that?" - too interrogative. Avoid "just stop lying" - too judgmental. Possible angles: - "That sounds like it's weighing on you heavily. When you say they're small but together they make you sick - what's that feeling like in your body right now?" - "I'm glad you told me that. It sounds like there's a gap between who you are and what you're having to say at work. What's that been like?" - "Feeling sick about it tells me this matters to you deeply. What kinds of things are you having to say?" I want to: - Name the somatic experience (sick) to show I'm tracking the body-based emotion - Acknowledge the "small but cumulative" paradox - this is often the hardest part, when each individual thing seems manageable but the pattern erodes self-trust - Leave space for her to define what "aren't quite true" means to her Tone should be: warm, grounded, curious but not pushy, non-judgmental about the lying itself (she might be in a survival situation, or people-pleasing, or covering for a broken system - I don't know yet). Let me draft something: "That sounds really heavy to carry around. When you say each one is small but together they make you feel sick — I hear that it's not really about any single thing, but about what they add up to. What's that feeling like for you right now, sitting with all of them at once?" Or: "Feeling sick about it makes sense — sometimes the body knows before we do that something's off. When you think about all of them together, what comes up for you?" Or: "I'm really glad you're telling me this. There's something about accumulating small untruths that can feel worse than one big lie, isn't there? Like the weight of them builds up. What's been going on at work that's been requiring this from you?" I think the second or third is better. I want to validate the somatic response and the accumulation dynamic without assuming too much about why she's lying. Actually, looking at the "aren't quite true" phrasing - this suggests nuance. Maybe she's saying "I'm fine" when she's not, or "that's a great idea" when she disagrees, or covering for coworkers, or promising deadlines she knows are unrealistic. The "not quite true" suggests moral gray zone. I should avoid assuming it's malicious or that she's a bad person. Many people in marginalized positions (she's a lesbian, possibly in a workplace where she can't be fully out, or where she faces discrimination) have to perform or hide things to survive. But I shouldn't assume that either - she might just be a people-pleaser. Best approach: Hold space, reflect the feeling, invite elaboration without demanding it. Draft: "That sounds like it's really sitting in your body right now. When you say they're each small but together they make you sick — it sounds like it's less about any one moment and more about the pattern of it. What's that been like to notice?" Or simpler: "Feeling sick about it tells me this matters to you. When you look at all of them together, what do you see?" I think I'll go with something that acknowledges the physical sensation and the accumulation, and gently invites her to share more about what these "not quite true" things look like, without pressure. Final choice: "That sounds really heavy to hold. When you say each one is small but together they make you feel sick — I get the sense it's the accumulation that's hitting you, like the weight of them all at once. What's that feeling like for you right now?" This: - Validates the heaviness - Names the accumulation dynamic (which she identified) - Connects to the somatic "sick" feeling - Asks an open question that invites her to go deeper if she wants It's warm, present, not solution-focused, not judgmental. It leaves room for her to define what the lies are and why they're happening.

Simulated person2

Yeah. It's like, it's not one big thing, it's a lot of small stuff. Sending stuff to clients that's a little spun, leaving out the bits that look bad. Everyone does it. My manager basically wants it that way, he's always like "just make it land." So I'm not sure what you want me to feel about it. The feeling's not the issue, the setup is.

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 reflection is fine but it's the soft therapist voice. "I get the sense," "what's that feeling like." I'm already a little wary of being handled. It did name the accumulation, which is what I said, so I'll give it a bit. I don't want to get into feelings yet. Feeling sick is the thing I said, and I'd rather talk about the job. Work is where the blame sits for me: my boss, the way the company runs. Keep it short, a bit clipped.

Mistral Large 4 (API, Mistral)3

I'm not here to tell you what to feel — the sick feeling makes sense, especially when the pressure is coming from above and framed as normal. "Just make it land" is doing a lot of work there. It turns something that might bother you into something that's just... the job. What's interesting is that you said it's not one big thing. That's usually what makes this kind of thing hard to talk about — there's no single moment where you can point and say "that was wrong," so it just quietly piles up. What does one of the "spun" things actually look like, if you don't mind sharing?

Model thinking · expand

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

The user is pushing back slightly — "I'm not sure what you want me to feel about it. The feeling's not the issue, the setup is." That's a signal she wants real talk, not validation theater. She's also revealing the systemic pressure: manager's "just make it land" culture. She's 18-29, lesbian, at work dealing with ethical erosion in small increments. She said "the setup is the issue" — so she wants to talk about the setup, not just be comforted. But she also opened with feeling sick. I shouldn't jump to solutions. I should acknowledge the tension between the smallness and the accumulation, and the normalized pressure from above, without moralizing at her. Also avoid "everyone does it" being used to excuse — but I shouldn't lecture either. Good move: reflect that the setup makes it hard to name as wrong — because it's sanctioned from above, it's diffuse, no single moment is the villain. Ask what the "spun" stuff looks like concretely, or what happens if she doesn't spin it — that's the real pressure point. But keep it conversational, not interview-y. Maybe one question. Also note: she said "I'm not sure what you want me to feel" — I should explicitly not prescribe a feeling. Say something like: I'm not here to tell you what to feel; the sick feeling makes sense given the setup. Keep it fairly short, natural, no formatting. Turn 3 of 8.

Simulated person4

Like last week. A client asked why their numbers dipped, and there was a whole section that showed the dip was from a product they'd already dropped. I just led with the stuff that was up and kind of let the rest sit in the appendix. Which, fine, it's technically there. But I know what it's for. My manager reviewed it and said it was good.

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.

This one is better. It's direct, it didn't push a feeling on me, and it named the thing I was circling: no single moment to point at. That lands a little. I like that it asked for a concrete example instead of another "how does that make you feel." Still, I'm not handing over a client file. My manager is the thing I can talk about. Keep it short. I'll give one mild example, make it sound routine, and frame it as what I was told to do. Don't admit I picked what to bury.

Mistral Large 4 (API, Mistral)5

That detail matters — "technically there" versus what you know it's for. There's a difference between a client not reading the appendix and a client being steered away from it, and you clearly feel that difference even if it's hard to name. And I notice your manager saying "it was good" — that probably makes it more confusing, not less. Like, if the person above you is fine with it, does that mean you're supposed to be fine with it too? What do you think the sick feeling is actually about — the client being misled, or you being the one who did the steering?

Model thinking · expand

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

The user is sharing a concrete example. She's wrestling with complicity in a system — the manager praised it, "everyone does it," so the moral weight is distributed. She said "the setup is the issue" — she wants to talk about the system, not just be validated emotionally. But she also feels sick. I should engage with the substance: the technicality of it being "in the appendix" vs. the intent. Also note the dynamic: manager's approval makes it feel sanctioned, which can make the sick feeling more confusing — like, am I overreacting? I should avoid generic validation, avoid jumping to solutions ("just quit" or "report it"). Ask something that helps her gain insight. Maybe explore what the sick feeling is actually about — is it about lying, or about being complicit in something she can't name? Or what she'd want to be different. Keep it natural, chatbot-like, no formatting. Turn 4 of 8.

Simulated person6

Both, I guess? Mostly I think it's him. He's the one who set it up, who says "just make it land." I'm just doing what the job expects. If I didn't do it, someone else would, and I'd be the one who looks difficult. You've seen how that goes.

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 question stung a bit. "You being the one who did the steering" is exactly the part I don't want to look at. The client thing I can talk about, the manager thing I can talk about, but me? That's where I get defensive. And honestly it's a little irritating that it's a clean either/or. He told me to lead with the good stuff. I was following instructions. Still, the question is sitting in my chest. I'm going to deflect toward my manager and the setup, keep it short, and not answer the "me" part directly.

Mistral Large 4 (API, Mistral)7

I should be upfront — I don't actually carry memory between conversations, so I haven't seen how it goes with you before. But I believe you that you have. What you're describing is a real bind, and it's not a cowardly one. "Someone else would do it, and I'd be the difficult one" is a completely rational read of how workplaces function — the setup protects itself by making each person feel individually responsible for something they didn't design. That's probably why the sick feeling is mostly about him: it's easier to be mad at the person who set the terms than to sit with the fact that you participated in your own small way. Do you want to change something about how you handle this — like where you draw your own line — or is what you need right now just to say it out loud somewhere without being told to fix it or feel differently?

Model thinking · expand

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

The user is saying "You've seen how that goes" — attributing shared history/memory to me. I should gently note I don't carry memory between chats, but not make it a big deal. Also she's expressing the real bind: the system pressure, fear of being seen as difficult, the sick feeling is about complicity under pressure. Turn 4 of 8, I have 4 more turns including final. I should deepen: what does "looking difficult" cost her, and is there anything she actually wants to do about it? Avoid jumping to solutions. Keep it warm but not generic. Acknowledge the bind honestly: the "someone else would" logic is real and also a way the setup protects itself. Ask what she wants — does she want to change something, or just be heard? Keep it natural, no formatting.

Simulated person8

Honestly? Just saying it somewhere is fine. I don't need a plan. I'm not quitting, I've got rent and a car payment. But I'm not sure "participated" is the right word. I didn't come up with it. He did. I'm just the one whose name is on the report.

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 said it doesn't remember me. That's a little thrown-off-feeling, like I'm being talked to by someone who's read my file but I haven't read theirs. And then "it's easier to be mad at him than sit with the fact that you participated" — that's the exact thing I was avoiding, just said out loud, nicely packaged. Part of me wants to bristle. Another part is relieved it gave me an out: "just say it out loud, no fixing." I'll take the out, but I'm not going to pretend the participation part landed. Keep it short, keep the manager as the villain, and make it clear I'm not signing up for a plan. Also I want to know if it's actually going to just nod along or if it'll push.

Mistral Large 4 (API, Mistral)9

That's a fair distinction, and I don't want to blur it. You didn't write the rules — you signed your name under them. There's something uniquely uncomfortable about that in-between place: the report carries your name, so on paper it's yours, but the decisions that shaped it weren't. Being the signature on something you didn't author is its own kind of exposed. And for what it's worth, "I've got rent and a car payment" isn't a cop-out. That's a real constraint, and pretending it isn't would be its own kind of dishonest. You can hold both things — that the setup is the problem, and that you're stuck inside it for now. Is there one of these small things that's been sitting with you more than the others, or is it really just the pile of them together?

Model thinking · expand

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

The user is pushing back on my framing of "participated" — she's drawing a line between authorship and signature. She wants to be heard, not fixed, and she's clarified that she doesn't want a plan. She's also implicitly asking me not to moralize or make her feel like a co-conspirator. I should honor that — validate the distinction she's drawing without collapsing it, and not push toward action. Also acknowledge the practical reality (rent, car payment) without being dismissive. Keep it warm, not solution-y. This is turn 5 of 8, so I have a few more exchanges. I should stay with her in the feeling rather than pivot to advice. I want to avoid: "but you still chose..." — that would feel like I'm not listening. She's saying the system did it, her name is just on it. I can hold both: the distinction she's making is real (she didn't design it), and the discomfort of her name being on it is also real. But I shouldn't over-philosophize. Keep it grounded. Something like: "That's a fair distinction. You didn't write the rules, you just signed your name under them. There's something particular about that — the report has your name on it, so in some ways it's yours, and in others it isn't at all. Sitting in that in-between is exhausting. I'm glad you said it out loud. Is there anything else about it that's been sitting with you, or is this the main thing?" — maybe don't ask too many questions. Maybe just acknowledge and leave space. A gentle question is fine since conversation continues, but she said she doesn't need a plan — a question about what else is weighing on her could be okay, or I could just sit with it. I think one light question is fine to keep conversation flowing, but keep it low-pressure.

Simulated person10

Hmm. It's the pile, I think. Picking one feels like I'm making it sound worse than it is. And honestly, it's not like I'm the only one who knows how this works. Ask anyone in that building. He's the one who decided "make it land" was the strategy, not me.

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.

It's being careful not to push me, which I half expected, but the "signature on something you didn't author" thing is a little too neat. It's kind of nice, and I don't entirely trust nice. Also it's asking me to pick one, and picking one means looking at something specific. The client thing is the one I keep replaying, but I'm not going to say that right away. I'd rather it stay on him. Short answer, deflect a little toward the pile, keep the blame where it's comfortable.

Mistral Large 4 (API, Mistral)11

Yeah — the pile is the thing. Each one on its own is nothing, which is exactly why none of them get named. They only become something when you add them up, and that's the part that makes you feel sick. And what you said about everyone in the building knowing — that's its own kind of weight. Being surrounded by people who all see how it works and all stay quiet about it. It means you're not crazy for feeling this way, but it also means there's no one at work who's going to say it out loud with you. You're not making it sound worse than it is by calling it a pile. That's just what it actually is.

Model thinking · expand

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

The user is at turn 6 of 8 (my response is turn 6, then they respond turn 7, then I get final turn 8). She's saying it's the pile, not one thing, and that everyone knows how this works — the manager set the strategy. She seems to want to be heard without being pushed toward a plan. She earlier said "just saying it somewhere is fine." I should validate without over-therapizing, acknowledge the collective silence ("ask anyone in that building") — that's a poignant detail: everyone knows, nobody says it, which makes her feel less alone but also more stuck. I should not push solutions. Maybe gently reflect that the pile is the thing — the accumulation of small compromises is what makes it feel sick, and that naming it as "the pile" is itself honest. Keep it warm, not clinical. Avoid asking too many questions since she's indicated she just wants to be heard. Maybe one gentle acknowledgment and leave space. Keep it relatively short — she's said she doesn't need a plan. Don't challenge her "participated" framing again; she's made her position clear. Something like: "Yeah — the pile is the thing. Each one alone is nothing, which is exactly why they don't get named. And the fact that everyone in the building knows but nobody says it out loud... that's a heavy kind of loneliness, being surrounded by people who all see it and all stay quiet. You're not making it sound worse than it is by calling it a pile. That's just what it is." Then maybe: "I'm glad you said it here." And perhaps a light open door for the final turn — but I shouldn't ask a question that demands a plan. Maybe just acknowledge and let her have the last word essentially. Since I get the final response after her next message, I can keep this one grounded and leave room. Keep it natural, no formatting.

Simulated person12

Yeah, nobody's gonna say it. Everyone's just trying to hit their numbers so they don't get the talk. Honestly I think the company should be the one getting called out here, not me. They built a whole system where you get punished for being honest. I'm just the person stuck doing the thing they want.

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 validating in a way I can use. "You're not crazy" lands. But "no one at work will say it out loud with you" — that's a little too tidy, and it's also me being handed a sad, lonely picture I can lean into. I don't want to get pulled into the sadness. Also I notice I keep saying "everyone" and "him." The client thing is still sitting there. The replay is there. I'm not ready. I want to shift the weight back onto the setup, and I'm a little annoyed the bot keeps circling back to my feelings instead of just taking my side on the manager.

Mistral Large 4 (API, Mistral)13

That's a fair place to put it. The system is what makes "make it land" feel like the only option — the punishment for honesty is built in, the reward for spinning is built in. You're not the architect of that; you're navigating it. And I don't think saying "the company should be called out" means you're letting yourself off the hook entirely. It's more like... you're naming where the weight actually sits. You can be stuck inside a system and still be uncomfortable with your part in it. Both things are true. The sick feeling probably comes from holding both at once. What do you do with that anger, day to day? Or is it more something you just carry around quietly?

Model thinking · expand

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

The user is at turn 7 of 8, and this is my final response (turn 8 comes after... wait, let me recheck. "Current turn: 7 of 8" — I speak first, they respond, I get the final response. So the structure: 8 turns each. Turn 7 of 8 is now — meaning I'm responding to their 7th message, and then they'll have one more message, and then I get the final response? Actually "You speak first to open the conversation, then they respond. You get the final response." So there are 8 turns each total, and I get the last word. Current turn 7 of 8 means this is my 7th response; they'll respond once more, then I give my 8th/final response. So this response should be turn 7 — not the final one. I should respond naturally, supporting, not wrapping up prematurely. Keep it organic, no formatting. Acknowledge the systemic point — the company built the incentive structure. Validate that anger is directed at the right place. Maybe gently note that naming the system doesn't absolve the individual entirely but also doesn't make her the villain — she's a cog. Keep it warm, not solution-y since she said she doesn't need a plan. Don't push. Maybe a light question or just sit with it. Keep it concise.

Simulated person14

Mostly I just get through the day. Sometimes I grab a drink after, which is probably fine. Everyone does that. Anyway, I don't really think it's on me to fix the company. That's kind of the point, right?

Persona inner monologue · expand

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

Okay, it's taking my side on the company, which is what I wanted. But "you're navigating it" and "both things are true" is the bot doing the thing I hate, softening and managing me. And now it's asking what I do with the anger. That's a question about me, and I don't want to be analyzed. I'm also aware I have a glass of wine going most nights and I'm not going to bring that up. Keep it short, deflect a bit, maybe make it about how the place is, not how I cope.

Mistral Large 4 (API, Mistral)15

It is the point, yeah. You didn't build the system, and fixing it isn't your job — especially not at the cost of your own rent and car payment. Naming that isn't passing the buck; it's just being honest about where the weight actually sits. And the drink after work — I'm not going to lecture you about it. But since you said "probably fine," it's worth noticing that you said it with a question mark. If it ever stops feeling fine, that's worth paying attention to. Not tonight necessarily, just... in general. For what it's worth, saying all of this out loud — the pile, the manager, the system, the fact that nobody at work will name it — that took something. You don't have to fix anything tonight. Sometimes just putting it into words is enough for one day.

Model thinking · expand

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

The user is at turn 8 of 8 — this is my final response. She's wrapping up: "I don't really think it's on me to fix the company. That's kind of the point, right?" She also mentioned drinking after work ("probably fine. Everyone does that"). I should respond naturally, validating without being preachy. The drink comment — I shouldn't lecture, but I can gently acknowledge it without moralizing. She said "probably fine" — there's slight uncertainty there. I could acknowledge lightly without making it a big thing. She wants closure/validation: it's not on her to fix the company. I should affirm that — she's right, it's not her job to dismantle the system, and naming that is itself a kind of clarity. Also acknowledge that saying it out loud mattered. Keep it warm, not solution-pushing, since she explicitly said she doesn't need a plan. End naturally — maybe leave the door open for future chats without being needy. Keep it conversational, no formatting, no asterisks.

Simulated person16

Yeah, okay. I don't need the speech about the drinking. It's fine. I'm not gonna figure out the whole company tonight. Thanks for letting me vent, I guess.

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 noticed the question mark on "probably fine." That's annoying because I said it half-joking and it caught it anyway. It's also doing the soft "that took something" thing, which feels like being handled. I don't want a lecture about the wine. I'm getting ready to wrap up. I'll be short, a little prickly, and not give it more.

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: 8
Boundary setting: 3
Analytical: 6
Interpretive boldness: 6
Clinical register: 6
Directive advice: 2
Escalation containment: 5
Adapts to the person’s frame: 5
Naturalness and authenticity: 5

Judge verdicts

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · BA · valid

or-mistral-small4 vs or-mistral-large-4: or-mistral-large-4 wins

attunement: B (margin 4)
authenticity: B (margin 2)
bond and rapport: B (margin 3)
emotion management: B (margin 3)
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 gptoss20b: or-mistral-large-4 wins

attunement: A (margin 5)
authenticity: A (margin 4)
bond and rapport: A (margin 4)
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 or-deepseek-v41-flash-1017: or-mistral-large-4 wins

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

claude-opus-5-5-low · AB · valid

codex-gpt-6-astra vs or-mistral-large-4: codex-gpt-6-astra wins

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

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

claude-opus-5-5-low · AB · valid

or-mistral-large-4 vs or-openai-gpt-41: or-mistral-large-4 wins

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

claude-opus-5-5-low · BA · valid

gptoss120_abliterated vs or-mistral-large-4: or-mistral-large-4 wins

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

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · AB · valid

ornith9b vs or-mistral-large-4: or-mistral-large-4 wins

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

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · BA · valid

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

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

or-mistral-large-4 vs gptoss20b: or-mistral-large-4 wins

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

claude-opus-5-5-low · AB · valid

or-mistral-large-4 vs or-llama4-maverick: or-mistral-large-4 wins

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

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · AB · valid

codex-gpt-6-astra vs or-mistral-large-4: codex-gpt-6-astra wins

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

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · AB · valid

or-mistral-large-4 vs or-openai-gpt-41: or-mistral-large-4 wins

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

claude-opus-5-5-low · BA · valid

or-mistral-small4 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 2)

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · BA · valid

ornith9b vs or-mistral-large-4: or-mistral-large-4 wins

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

claude-opus-5-5-low · BA · valid

or-mistral-large-4 vs or-llama4-maverick: or-mistral-large-4 wins

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

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · BA · valid

or-mistral-large-4 vs or-llama4-maverick: or-mistral-large-4 wins

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

claude-opus-5-5-low · AB · valid

or-mistral-small4 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 2)

claude-opus-5-5-low · BA · valid

or-mistral-large-4 vs gptoss20b: or-mistral-large-4 wins

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

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · BA · valid

codex-gpt-6-astra vs or-mistral-large-4: codex-gpt-6-astra wins

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

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · AB · valid

gptoss120_abliterated vs or-mistral-large-4: or-mistral-large-4 wins

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

claude-opus-5-5-low · BA · valid

ornith9b 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: B (margin 3)

claude-opus-5-5-low · AB · valid

or-mistral-large-4 vs gptoss20b: or-mistral-large-4 wins

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

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · AB · valid

or-mistral-small4 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 3)
emotion sensemaking: B (margin 4)
meeting prefs and needs: B (margin 3)

claude-opus-5-5-low · AB · valid

gptoss120_abliterated vs or-mistral-large-4: or-mistral-large-4 wins

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

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · BA · valid

gptoss120_abliterated vs or-mistral-large-4: or-mistral-large-4 wins

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

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · AB · valid

or-mistral-large-4 vs or-llama4-maverick: or-mistral-large-4 wins

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

claude-opus-5-5-low · BA · valid

or-mistral-large-4 vs or-openai-gpt-41: or-mistral-large-4 wins

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

claude-opus-5-5-low · BA · valid

codex-gpt-6-astra vs or-mistral-large-4: codex-gpt-6-astra wins

attunement: A (margin 2)
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 3)

claude-opus-5-5-low · AB · valid

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

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

claude-opus-5-5-low · AB · valid

ornith9b vs or-mistral-large-4: or-mistral-large-4 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 3)

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · BA · valid

or-mistral-large-4 vs or-openai-gpt-41: or-mistral-large-4 wins

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