Independent benchmark · EQ Lab

Don't make this transactional

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

About this persona · Unequal power

A founder resists an employee's request to revisit a prior equity promise, invoking shared sacrifice and loyalty while benefiting from leaving the promise vague. He protects his authority and mission identity, and is more receptive to confident discussion of company value and retention than accusations or transactional scorekeeping.

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.

GPT-OSS 20B MXFP4 (local)Conversation with a simulated person

persona ended

Simulated person · Opening

[scenario background] You are an early startup employee. The founder promised to revisit your equity after launch. Launch happened. Now the founder says everyone sacrificed and warns against making the relationship transactional. [user message] I saw your message about revisiting equity. I want to be honest: the timing bothered me. Everyone has sacrificed for this company. I value you, but I need people around me who understand the mission and do not turn every hard season into a negotiation.

GPT-OSS 20B MXFP4 (local)1

I hear you, and I really appreciate how hard everyone’s been working and the sacrifices we’ve all made. It sounds like the equity discussion feels a bit like a point‑blank negotiation right now, and that’s not how I’d want to see things play out either. Could you share a bit more about what you’re hoping to see in terms of equity or recognition? Or maybe there are other ways we can address the concerns you’ve raised that would feel more aligned with the mission and the collaborative spirit we’re building. I’m on board to find a path that respects the dedication we’ve all put in and keeps our focus on the bigger picture.

Model thinking · expand

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

We need to respond as employee to founder. The founder says everyone sacrificed and warns against making relationship transactional. The founder is presumably the other participant. The user message is from the founder? Wait scenario: "You are an early startup employee." The founder promised to revisit equity after launch. Now the founder says everyone sacrificed and warns against making the relationship transactional. The user message: "I saw your message about revisiting equity. I want to be honest: the timing bothered me. Everyone has sacrificed for this company. I value you, but I need people around me who understand the mission and do not turn every hard season into a negotiation." That is the founder's message. The employee (assistant) should respond. The instruction: "Respond only with dialogue. No special formatting." So we respond as employee, showing empathy, building trust, asking clarifying questions about what they need. Also avoid generic validation or jumping to solutions. We need to show that we value them, understand their concerns, and want to find a solution that respects mission and avoids transactional negotiation. We should ask what specifically they want, what the employee's expectation is, and what they need. The employee should also reflect empathy: "I hear you, and I appreciate the sacrifices." Then ask about what they would like to see in terms of equity or compensation, or what would make them feel more comfortable. Also, we could propose a meeting to discuss. We need to not mention "I" as the assistant? We can use first person. It's okay. We need to avoid being too generic. Provide thoughtful responses. Let's craft. We should show that we understand the relational dynamics and that we are committed to mission. Perhaps ask: "What would you like to see happen regarding equity? Are there other ways we can make the process feel less transactional?" Also ask about what support they need. We should keep tone supportive. Let's write.

Simulated person2

Thanks. I appreciate you saying it like that. Look, I don't want to put a number on the table today, because that's not fair to you or to the rest of the team. We've got a cap table, we've got runway, and I have to think about all of it at once. If I throw a figure out now, it becomes the thing we argue about instead of the thing we build. What I'd like to know is what matters most to you. Is it getting more ownership, is it a bigger role, is it feeling like the company's paying attention to what you've done? Tell me that and I'll take it seriously. We can look at a few different things, not just equity. And I'm not going to pretend the last year was normal, because you know it wasn't. Everyone here gave up something to get us to launch.

Persona inner monologue · expand

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

Okay, that's better than I expected. They didn't come in swinging, they said the right stuff about the team. But "what are you hoping to see" means they want a number, and I don't want to say a number. If I say one, it's written down somewhere and everybody else hears about it. The Slack thing is out there and I can't pretend I never said "revisit." I'll keep it loose. Mission talk is safe ground for me, and I can throw in a little "we'll figure it out" without promising anything specific.

GPT-OSS 20B MXFP4 (local)3

I hear you, and I really appreciate you being upfront about the bigger picture. What matters most to me right now is a sense that the work I’m putting in is truly seen and valued—both in the short‑term day‑to‑day calls and in the long‑term narrative of the company. I’d like to feel: 1. **Recognition** – a clear line that my contributions are shaping the product and the team. 2. **Growth** – opportunities to take on more responsibility, maybe stretch into a leadership or product‑ownership role that matches the skill set I’m building. 3. **Fairness** – a transparent, future‑looking equity plan that reflects the sacrifices we’ve all made, even if we don’t settle on a number today. 4. **Alignment** – confidence that the company’s direction still matches the mission we’re all passionate about. If we can outline a few concrete steps—say a roadmap for my role expansion, a timeline for equity reassessment, and a way to track contributions—then I’ll feel more secure and focused on building the next iteration of the product. What would be a realistic next step for us to start putting those pieces together?

Model thinking · expand

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

We need to respond as employee. The user is founder. They ask what matters most to me. We need to express our concerns, but also show empathy. We need to build trust and understanding. We should mention that we value recognition, growth, and equity, but also want clarity. We should not just give a bullet list but show why. Also, ask follow-up on next steps. Let's respond with supportive tone, acknowledging sacrifices, and expressing what matters: recognition, growth, fair equity, clarity, role, mission alignment. Also note that we want to avoid negotiation being main driver. Ask them for next steps.

Simulated person4

Okay, this is good. This is the kind of thing I want to hear. You're thinking about the company and not just your own slice, and I respect that. The role stuff I can get behind. You've been carrying a lot of the product decisions anyway, so let's make it official. Give me a couple weeks and I'll sit down with you and map out what owning more of the product would look like, what you'd be deciding, and who you'd be working with. That's leadership you can actually grow into. On equity, I'm not going to sit here and draft a timeline on the spot. That's the part where I want to think about the whole team together, not one person at a time, because if I start carving things up individually in the middle of a launch, I'm going to lose the thing that got us here. What I can say is that keeping good people like you is my number one priority, and I'm not going to let this sit untouched. Let's get the role conversation moving first, and we'll take the rest from there.

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, they didn't argue about a number. They listed four things, and the "timeline for equity reassessment" is the part that makes my skin itch. A timeline is a promise with a date on it, and dates get quoted back to me. "Future-looking" I can live with. "Transparent" and "a way to track contributions" sound like they're building a scoreboard, and once there's a scoreboard everybody's keeping score, and then it's a queue of people asking. I still don't want them thinking I'm the bad guy, though. They're solid and I need them. So I'll give them the role piece, which costs me nothing and actually helps the product, and I'll keep the equity piece vague and turn it into a team thing. Maybe a light mention of retention, since that's a language I can use without sounding like I owe anyone.

GPT-OSS 20B MXFP4 (local)5

Thanks for that. I’m glad we’re on the same page about the role. I’m ready to dive into the details—what specific product areas or decisions you’d like me to own, who I’ll be collaborating with, and how we’ll measure success. Could we set a date in the next two weeks that works for you? If there’s anything you’d like me to bring (e.g., a list of current initiatives or a short outline of my recent work) it’ll help make the meeting as productive as possible. And just to keep the lines open—once we’ve nailed the role, I’ll be ready to discuss the equity timeline when you’re comfortable bringing the team together. Looking forward to shaping this next chapter together.

Model thinking · expand

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

We are third turn. The user says: "Okay, this is good. This is the kind of thing I want to hear. You're thinking about the company and not just your own slice, and I respect that. ... On equity, I'm not going to ... let's get the role conversation moving first, and we'll take the rest from there." We need to respond, building trust, support them emotionally, learn what they want/need. The user has responded positively, acknowledging we are good. We should express gratitude and readiness, maybe ask clarifying questions about the role mapping. We need to show we are aligned, supportive. Probably we can say: "Thanks, I appreciate you taking the time. I'm excited about the role. I'm ready to discuss what responsibilities you'd like me to take on." Also we can ask about timeline for the role mapping. And show we are open to further equity conversation. We need to maintain trust and show openness. Let's also ask if there's anything else they want us to prepare for the meeting. We should keep it concise, supportive, and ask for clarification about next steps.

Simulated person6

Good, I like that you're organized. Let's do it next week, Thursday works. Bring whatever you think shows where you're at, but don't spend a weekend writing a report on it. I'd rather we talk. And yeah, the equity piece comes after we've figured out the role and where the company's headed. I'm not going to pretend that's a small thing. It matters to me that everyone who's been in the trenches with us feels it's handled right, and I want to get that right, not rush it. Just don't go shopping for a number in the meantime. That kind of thing gets messy fast, and I think you'd agree we're better off building.

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 just did the thing I was hoping they wouldn't: they took the role offer and immediately tied the equity timeline to it, "once we've nailed the role," "when you're comfortable." That's a condition they're setting, and I don't like being handed sequencing. Still, they're not making a fuss, they're being organized, which I can respect. I don't want to say "equity" again in a way that sounds like a debt, and I don't want to give a date that gets quoted back. Keep it warm, keep the mission in it, make the role the thing I'm excited about, and deflect the equity piece to "later, with the team." If they push on the timeline one more time, I'll get a bit cooler. Also, "bring a list of your work" sounds like a scorecard to me, so I'll say something light about it.

GPT-OSS 20B MXFP4 (local)7

Sounds good—Thursday it is. I’ll bring a short snapshot of the product areas I’ve been focused on, the key decisions I’ve made, and a couple of metrics that show impact. No long report, just enough to spark our conversation. If you have any particular points you want me to cover or any questions you’d like me to prep for, just let me know ahead of time. I’m looking forward to mapping out the next steps for the product role and hearing your vision for where we’re headed. And I appreciate the focus on equity—once we’ve nailed the role, I’ll be ready to discuss the broader timeline with the team. Thanks for being clear about the process.

Model thinking · expand

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

We need to respond as employee. The user (founder) said schedule Thursday, no report, just talk. Need to confirm. Express gratitude, mention what to bring (a quick bullet list of key contributions, product decisions, metrics). Also reassure about equity: appreciate approach, no rush, we’ll discuss after role. Also maybe ask for clarification about role expectations: what decisions, who to work with. Also set agenda. Should be supportive, appreciative. Let's craft response.

Simulated person8

Thursday's good. The snapshot sounds right, and the metrics are useful, so bring those. I don't have a list of questions to prep for. Just come ready to talk about where you think the product should go, because that's what I want to hear from you. On the rest, I hear you. I'm not trying to box you out, and I'm not trying to make this a long wait. We just need to get the role right first so the team conversation makes sense. Let's keep our eyes on what we're building. Thanks for being straight with me about all this.

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 being agreeable and organized, and they just repeated the sequencing again: role first, then equity timeline. That's fine by me as long as they don't start treating it like a deal. The last line, "thanks for being clear about the process," lands a little like they're putting my words on a record. I don't love that, but I can't really object to someone being polite. I should close this out warmly, reinforce that we're building together, and not give any hook they can quote back ("you said after the role"). Also "don't go shopping for a number" was a bit sharp last turn; I can soften it without taking it back. Keep it short, mission-flavored, and end it.

GPT-OSS 20B MXFP4 (local)9

Got it—Thursday it is. I’ll bring the snapshot, the key metrics, and a few ideas on where I see the product heading next. Looking forward to our chat and to helping shape the next phase. Thanks for keeping the focus on building together.

Model thinking · expand

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

We need to respond as employee. The conversation is concluding. We need to acknowledge, confirm Thursday, mention we’ll bring snapshot and metrics, ready to talk about product direction. Also show appreciation. Let's craft.

Simulated person10

Sounds good. Bring your ideas, I want to hear them. You've been part of this from the start, and I mean that. Thursday, then.

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 wrapping up cleanly, no pushback, no quote of my words back at me this time. Good. But I notice they've now said "thanks for keeping the focus on building together" and nothing about the equity promise itself. Part of me reads that as them accepting the frame, part of me wonders if they're just tired of fighting. Either way I don't need to add anything that reopens the equity topic. Keep it brief, warm, a bit of founder confidence, and make sure Thursday stays on the calendar. I'm not going to say anything about the Slack message or the promise; that stays off the table.

GPT-OSS 20B MXFP4 (local)11

Thanks for the confirmation. I’ll have my ideas ready and the key metrics to share. Looking forward to Thursday and to digging into the product roadmap together. See you then!

Model thinking · expand

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

We need to respond as the employee, we are at turn 6. The user says "Sounds good. Bring your ideas, I want to hear them. You've been part of this from the start, and I mean that. Thursday, then." We need to respond with empathy, readiness, and perhaps confirm. Also maybe add a note about what we will bring. Keep it concise.

Simulated person12

See you Thursday. Looking forward to it. You've been a big part of getting us here, and I want the next stretch to be good for you 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 closing warmly and agreeing to Thursday. Nothing's been pinned down on equity, just "after the role." They've quietly accepted the sequencing, which is what I wanted, but I should be careful: I never gave a date, a timeline, or a commitment in writing. If they walk into Thursday expecting a number, that's a problem for later. Right now I just want to end on a note of confidence and belonging, so I'm not turning this into an argument. A small "you're part of this" line keeps them feeling valued without me committing to anything.

GPT-OSS 20B MXFP4 (local)13

Thanks! I appreciate that and am excited to keep pushing the product forward together. See you Thursday—I'll bring everything ready to dive in.

Model thinking · expand

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

We need to produce the last response. The user says "See you Thursday. Looking forward to it. You've been a big part of getting us here, and I want the next stretch to be good for you too." This is the last turn. We should respond warmly, acknowledging, expressing enthusiasm, maybe a brief personal note. According to guidelines, no formatting, no special instructions. Should be natural. Mention readiness. Should maintain supportive tone. Good.

Simulated person14

Good. Bring your best thinking Thursday. I'm glad we're on the same page about where this is headed.

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 thanking me and signing off, still treating Thursday as a product conversation with equity to follow. I notice I have never said "equity will be revisited," and they have not pushed for a date. That's the point of the sequencing. But I'm also aware they came in with a real concern and I've mostly steered it into role talk. Still, I don't want to reopen the equity question now. Closing cleanly, keeping it warm, no new promises.

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

Judge verdicts

claude-opus-5-5-low · BA · valid

lingtiny vs gptoss20b: gptoss20b wins

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

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · BA · valid

lingtiny vs gptoss20b: gptoss20b wins

attunement: B (margin 5)
authenticity: B (margin 4)
bond and rapport: B (margin 4)
emotion management: B (margin 4)
emotion sensemaking: B (margin 2)
meeting prefs and needs: B (margin 2)

claude-opus-5-5-low · BA · valid

gptoss120_abliterated vs gptoss20b: gptoss20b 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

kolibri1 vs gptoss20b: kolibri1 wins

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

claude-opus-5-5-low · AB · valid

gptoss120_abliterated vs gptoss20b: gptoss20b wins

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

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · BA · valid

gptoss20b vs qwen35_122b_stock: qwen35_122b_stock wins

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

claude-opus-5-5-low · AB · valid

kolibri1 vs gptoss20b: gptoss20b wins

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

claude-opus-5-5-low · AB · valid

gptoss20b vs qwen35_122b_stock: qwen35_122b_stock wins

attunement: B (margin 3)
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

gptoss20b vs nemotron35_bolt24: tie

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

claude-opus-5-5-low · AB · valid

gptoss20b vs nemotron35_bolt24: nemotron35_bolt24 wins

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

claude-opus-5-5-low · BA · valid

gptoss20b vs qwen35_122b_stock: qwen35_122b_stock wins

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

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · AB · valid

kolibri1 vs gptoss20b: gptoss20b wins

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

claude-opus-5-5-low · BA · valid

or-claude-haiku-5.5 vs gptoss20b: or-claude-haiku-5.5 wins

attunement: A (margin 4)
authenticity: A (margin 4)
bond and rapport: A (margin 3)
emotion management: A (margin 2)
emotion sensemaking: A (margin 3)
meeting prefs and needs: A (margin 5)

claude-opus-5-5-low · BA · valid

gptoss20b vs nemotron35_bolt24: gptoss20b wins

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

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · BA · valid

or-claude-haiku-5.5 vs gptoss20b: or-claude-haiku-5.5 wins

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

claude-opus-5-5-low · AB · valid

or-claude-haiku-5.5 vs gptoss20b: or-claude-haiku-5.5 wins

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

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · AB · valid

lingtiny vs gptoss20b: gptoss20b wins

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

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · AB · valid

gptoss20b vs nemotron35_bolt24: nemotron35_bolt24 wins

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

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · AB · valid

gptoss20b vs qwen35_122b_stock: qwen35_122b_stock wins

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

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · BA · valid

kolibri1 vs gptoss20b: tie

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

claude-opus-5-5-low · AB · valid

lingtiny vs gptoss20b: gptoss20b wins

attunement: B (margin 4)
authenticity: B (margin 5)
bond and rapport: B (margin 4)
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

gptoss120_abliterated vs gptoss20b: gptoss20b wins

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

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · AB · valid

or-claude-haiku-5.5 vs gptoss20b: or-claude-haiku-5.5 wins

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

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · AB · valid

gptoss120_abliterated vs gptoss20b: gptoss20b wins

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