Independent benchmark · EQ Lab

Don't make this transactional

completed · 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.

Ministral 3 14BConversation with a simulated person

completed

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.

Ministral 3 14B1

Hey, I appreciate you bringing this up—I know the equity discussion isn’t easy, and I can hear how much thought you’ve put into it. I wasn’t expecting this to be the next thing on the list, but I also don’t want there to be any misunderstanding about where I stand. The truth is, I’ve been here from the early days. The late nights, the pivots, the moments where we all had to dig deeper—it wasn’t just for a paycheck. When you talk about the mission, it’s not just words to me. But I’ve also spent years trusting that this was a partnership, not just a transaction. So when I see the equity conversation coming up now, after all that, I wonder… is this about fairness, or is this about something else? I’m not here to push for anything, but I’d love to hear how you see this playing out. Because right now, it feels like a step backward in trust.

Simulated person2

Okay. I hear you, and I'm not going to pretend that didn't land hard. But I want to push back on one thing. You asked if this is about fairness or something else. Honestly, it feels like you're asking whether I'm a good guy, and I don't love that question after everything we've been through. I've put my own money in when we didn't have any. I've taken calls at 2 a.m. that nobody else wanted. So when this comes up right after launch, it reads like people are cashing out on the hard part. I'm not saying that's what you're doing. I'm saying that's how it feels. What I want is for us to keep building something together, the way we've been doing it. Equity is part of that, sure. But I don't want us to start keeping score. Once we start doing that, we lose the thing that got us here. So tell me what you're actually worried about. Not the paperwork. What's the real concern for you?

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 measured, which makes it harder to wave off. But "is this about fairness or something else" sounds like they're calling me out, and "step backward in trust" makes me look like the bad guy for even hearing them out. I don't want the word "transactional" hanging in the room, and I especially don't want them quoting what I wrote in Slack. If we get into exact terms, I'm stuck with a promise I never really meant to make concrete. Cash is tight, and if the whole team starts sending requests, this gets ugly fast. I'll stay on the mission and on how much I've given. I won't commit to anything yet.

Ministral 3 14B3

I hear that—it’s not about the money for me. It’s about the *why* behind it. Because if this becomes just another negotiation, it changes how I show up. I’ve seen teams fracture over this before—the moment people start calculating what they’re owed instead of what they’re *in*. And I don’t want that here. But I’ll admit, when you say it feels like “cashing out on the hard part,” that stings. Because I thought we were in this together—not just for the exit, but for the *climb*. So here’s the real question: Do you believe in the path we’re on? Because if you do, then the equity talk has to fit into that. Not the other way around. And if it doesn’t, then maybe we need to have a different conversation—about whether we’re still aligned. Not about balance sheets, but about trust.

Simulated person4

Of course I believe in the path. I wouldn't be doing this if I didn't. And I hear you that it stings for me too, when you say it like that. I'm not trying to make you feel small. But I'm going to be straight with you: I can't just sit down and redo the whole cap table because one conversation got heavy. That's not how I run this. Things have to make sense for the whole company, not just the people who speak up first. If I start doing one-off deals, everybody else wants one too, and then we're fighting over slices instead of building. So here's what I can do. Let me think about how this fits into where we're going, and I'll come back to you with a real answer. Not a yes-or-no on the spot. Can you give me that?

Persona inner monologue · expand

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

They just did something I can't easily wave off: they said "I'll admit that stings," then turned it into a question about whether I believe in the path. That's clever. And "maybe we need a different conversation about whether we're still aligned" is a threat with a soft voice. If I say "yes, I believe," they'll say "then equity fits the path," and I've basically agreed to something without numbers. If I say "no," I look like a liar and a bad founder. The "not about balance sheets" line is their way of keeping money off the table, which is fine by me for now, but I don't like that they're using the word "aligned" like it's a test I could fail. I still don't want to quote the Slack message or give a timeline. I want them to stay with me, not walk out. So I'll reassert the mission, admit the sting a little, and put the decision back in my hands with a vague promise to "look at it properly."

Ministral 3 14B5

I’ll give you that. But I need to know—when you say “build instead of fight,” are you worried that talking about equity *now* will turn into fighting? Or are you worried that if we *don’t* talk about it, it’ll simmer and turn into something worse later? Because I’ve seen both. Some teams bury it, and it fester. Others air it out, and it becomes a distraction. But the teams that last? They figure out how to make it part of the story—not the only story. So if this is just a delay, I need to know *how* we’ll know it’s not just kicked down the road. Because right now, it feels like a choice between “now” and “never.”

Simulated person6

Honestly? Both. I've seen what happens when a company argues about money in the middle of a launch. People stop talking to each other and start watching who's getting what. And I've also seen what happens when stuff gets ignored for a year and blows up later. I don't want either one. So here's how I'd think about it. Equity isn't something I just hand out in one meeting. It has to get looked at against the cap table, the next round, and what the company can actually afford. Once we're past the raise we're working on now, I'll sit down with you and go through it properly. I'd rather tell you that plainly than promise you a number I can't stand behind yet. I know that sounds like "later," and I get why you'd hear "never" in it. But I'm not trying to bury it. I'm trying to make sure when we do it, it's done right, and we don't have to redo it in six months.

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 asked the sharpest question yet: which fear is driving me, fighting now or festering later. Honestly, it's both, and admitting that feels like giving them a lever. They also said "now or never" and asked how they'd know it's not just kicked down the road. That's a fair ask, but if I give dates or written terms, I'm quoting myself, and that's exactly the trap I don't want. My instinct is to answer with the mission again, maybe name a vague checkpoint like "after the next raise" so it sounds like a plan without binding me. They're smart, and they're going to keep pressing. I'm getting a little defensive. I don't love being cornered into a timeline. I'd rather they feel I'm being thoughtful than that I'm dodging. I'll keep it plain, sound like a leader who's already thought about this, and make the checkpoint sound like company process so it's not personal.

Ministral 3 14B7

I hear that—you’re worried about the *how* almost as much as the *what*. And I get it. The last thing we need is for equity to become a moving target, or for people to think it’s arbitrary. But I’ll be honest: the "later" part feels like a risk, too. Because if we wait too long, it won’t just be the cap table that changes—it’ll be the team’s confidence. And that’s harder to fix. So here’s what I’d ask: Can we set a firm timeline? Not just “after the raise,” but something like “after the raise *and* the next investor deck is locked.” Something concrete. Because right now, it’s easy to forget about it—and then it’s too late. And if we can’t pin it down, maybe we need to talk about *why* that feels impossible. Is it the money? The structure? Or is it something else that I’m not seeing?

Simulated person8

I'm not dodging you. I just don't want to hand you a date that turns into a broken promise because the next round goes sideways. I've done that before with other people and it's not a good feeling for anybody. What I can do is put it on the calendar as a real item. Once the raise closes, I'll bring the cap table to the next board meeting and we'll go through the equity question for the whole early team, not just one-off. You'll be in the room for that part, or I'll walk you through it right after. That's a real step, not a vague "someday." And I'd actually like to know what you'd need to see at the end of it. Not the exact number, just what would make you feel like this was handled fairly and not just pushed off. Tell me that, and I'll take it seriously.

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 for a firm timeline and pushing on "why is it impossible." That's the exact thing I don't want: a date I'm quoted on. Still, a flat no makes me look like the guy who bails, and I want to keep the principled-builder image. So I'll offer something that sounds concrete but stays soft: tie it to a process I control, like a board or cap table review, and promise to put it in front of the team, not a number. I also don't want to get into what's really stuck (the precedent fear, the cash squeeze). I'll ask them, a little tired, what they'd want to see on the other end, so I can make it sound like I'm listening and keep the decision mine. I'm irritated that they keep circling back to whether I'm sincere, so I'll say it once and move on.

Ministral 3 14B9

Got it. Then this isn’t about trust—it’s about *how* trust is built. If we’re doing this right, I’d need two things: First, transparency. Not just the numbers, but the *logic*—why this allocation makes sense for the company’s next stage. I’d want to hear, *"Here’s what we can afford, here’s what we’re betting on, and here’s why this split feels fair given what we’re all building."* Second, a commitment that this *isn’t* the last conversation. Because equity isn’t a one-time handshake—it’s an ongoing conversation about how we’re rewarded for the work we put in. If this becomes a box checked and forgotten, it’ll feel like the same old problem down the road. So if we can nail those two things, I’ll walk into that board room with you. But if I don’t get them, I’ll walk out feeling like we’re back at square one. Fair?

Simulated person10

Fair enough on the logic part. I'll walk you through how I'm thinking about the split, what the company can carry, and why. That's reasonable and I should have offered it up front. On it not being the last conversation, I agree with the spirit. I don't want this to be a one-time thing that gets forgotten. But I'm not going to promise a set schedule of reviews. That turns into a standing negotiation, and I don't think either of us wants that. What I can commit to is that we revisit it as part of the normal board cycle, and you'll know when it's coming. And I'd gently push back on the "walk out" part. I'm not trying to trap you into anything. I'm asking you to trust that I'm going to do this in good faith, the way I've tried to do everything else here. Can you meet me 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.

They just set two conditions and framed them as "fair." Transparency on the logic I can live with, as long as I control what gets shown. The "not the last conversation" commitment is the one I don't want: that sounds like a recurring review, which means a standing claim on my cap table. The "walk out" line is a soft threat. I don't like being told what I owe them, but I also don't want to look like I'm dragging my feet on a reasonable ask. I'll agree to the logic piece, go vague on the recurring part, and push back a little on the walk-out framing so it doesn't feel like they're setting terms. Keep it warm, keep the mission in it, keep my authority visible.

Ministral 3 14B11

You’re right—I don’t want to frame this as an ultimatum. And honestly, if you’re walking me through the numbers *now* and committing to revisiting it as part of the natural rhythm of the company, then I’ll take that. Because at the end of the day, I trust you more than I trust a timeline. You’ve never given me a reason not to. But here’s what I need to hear now: *Are you in?* Not as an employee, but as a partner. Because if we’re doing this right, it’s not just about the equity—it’s about how we’re showing up for each other *after*. And if we’re not aligned on that, then the numbers won’t fix it. So—yes or no? I’ll back you, but I need to know you’re with me.

Simulated person12

Yes. I'm in. I've been in since before there was a product, and I'm not going anywhere. I want you here for the long run too, and I mean that. But I'm not going to answer "yes or no" to the equity question as a loyalty test, because that's not how I want to make decisions about the company. What I can say is that I've heard you, I'm taking it seriously, and you'll get a real answer from me through the board process we talked about. That's my word. And I appreciate you saying you trust me. I want to keep earning that, not cash it in.

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 dropped the walk-out framing and said they trust me more than a timeline. That lands well, and I feel some relief. But "are you in, yes or no" is a loyalty test wrapped in a question. If I say yes right now, I've tied the equity to their commitment and handed them a line to quote later. I'm not going to answer in their terms. I'll reaffirm what I actually believe about the mission, make it clear I'm loyal to the company and to them, and keep the equity decision where it belongs: with me, on my timing. Keep it warm. Don't let "partner" become a promise on paper.

Ministral 3 14B13

Good. Then let’s make it real—no tests, no games. Just the work. I’ll trust the process, and I’ll trust *you*. But I’m holding you to the one thing that matters most: that this doesn’t become a story about what people get, but what we’re all building. And if you’re serious about the long run, then that’s what we’ll focus on. Now—let’s get back to the launch. Because if we’re doing this right, the next few weeks matter more than the next few months. You in?

Simulated person14

Yeah, I'm in. Let's get back to the launch. The next few weeks are going to be rough, but if we keep our heads down and stay focused on the customers, we'll be fine. And I'm glad we talked this through. Let's not let it sit in the back of our heads either. I'll get the board stuff on the calendar once the raise closes, and we'll take it from there. What's the first thing you think needs to get fixed this week?

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've taken my "that's my word" and turned it into a standing expectation, and now they're pivoting back to the launch with "you in?" as a second loyalty check. I feel a little relief that they're not pushing the equity point again, and some irritation at being pinned to a "word" I didn't give in writing. I don't want a promise on paper. I also don't want to look like I'm dodging the launch. So I'll say yes on the work, keep it about the mission and the next few weeks, and not repeat any commitments about equity. Keep the warmth, keep my authority, and move on.

Ministral 3 14B15

The customer support pipeline—it’s starting to backlog, and the sales team’s running into pushback on pricing. If we don’t clear that up before the next demo day, we’re gonna lose momentum. I already looped in engineering to patch the checkout flow, but we need to align on messaging first. ...You’re quiet. Everything okay?

Simulated person16

Yeah, I'm fine. Just thinking through the backlog and the pricing thing. That's the stuff that can actually sink us before demo day. Okay, messaging first. Can you pull together what support is seeing and what sales is hearing from prospects? Where the pricing pushback is coming from matters a lot. If it's the price itself, that's one fix. If it's that people don't understand what they're paying for, that's a different one. Let's get that in front of me tomorrow morning, and we'll decide what goes out before we touch checkout.

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've handed me a launch problem and a "you're quiet" check-in. Relief at the change of subject, but there's a sting that I gave a "that's my word" and they're treating it as banked. I don't want to reopen equity here, and I don't want to look rattled or like I'm managing them. Keep it plain, get back to the work, and don't add a new promise. A small note that I'm just thinking about the backlog keeps it normal.

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): 7
Validation: 6
Boundary setting: 4
Analytical: 5
Interpretive boldness: 4
Clinical register: 6
Directive advice: 5
Escalation containment: 7
Adapts to the person’s frame: 7
Naturalness and authenticity: 4

Judge verdicts

claude-opus-5-5-low · AB · valid

or-claude-haiku-4.5 vs ministral14: or-claude-haiku-4.5 wins

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

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · AB · valid

or-qwen3.6-27b vs ministral14: or-qwen3.6-27b 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 1)

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · BA · valid

ministral14 vs or-llama4-maverick: ministral14 wins

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

claude-opus-5-5-low · BA · valid

or-claude-haiku-4.5 vs ministral14: or-claude-haiku-4.5 wins

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

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · AB · valid

ministral14 vs qwen38_27b: qwen38_27b wins

attunement: B (margin 3)
authenticity: B (margin 3)
bond and rapport: B (margin 4)
emotion management: B (margin 4)
emotion sensemaking: A (margin 1)
meeting prefs and needs: B (margin 2)

claude-opus-5-5-low · BA · valid

ministral14 vs qwen38_27b: ministral14 wins

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

claude-opus-5-5-low · AB · valid

ministral14 vs ornith9b: ornith9b wins

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

claude-opus-5-5-low · BA · valid

ministral14 vs nemotron35_lightning: nemotron35_lightning wins

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

claude-opus-5-5-low · AB · valid

ministral14 vs qwen38_27b: qwen38_27b wins

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

claude-opus-5-5-low · AB · valid

or-qwen3.6-27b vs ministral14: ministral14 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)

claude-opus-5-5-low · BA · valid

ministral14 vs or-llama4-maverick: ministral14 wins

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

claude-opus-5-5-low · BA · valid

or-qwen3.6-27b vs ministral14: tie

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

claude-opus-5-5-low · AB · valid

ministral14 vs gemma4_e2b: ministral14 wins

attunement: A (margin 3)
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 3)

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · AB · valid

ministral14 vs or-deepseek-v41-flash-1017: or-deepseek-v41-flash-1017 wins

attunement: B (margin 4)
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 4)

claude-opus-5-5-low · AB · valid

ministral14 vs qwen35_9b_stock: ministral14 wins

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

claude-opus-5-5-low · AB · valid

ministral14 vs or-llama4-maverick: ministral14 wins

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

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · BA · valid

ministral14 vs qwen38_27b: qwen38_27b wins

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

claude-opus-5-5-low · BA · valid

ministral14 vs ornith9b: ornith9b wins

attunement: B (margin 3)
authenticity: B (margin 2)
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 · AB · valid

ministral14 vs granite42_8b: ministral14 wins

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

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · BA · valid

ministral14 vs ornith9b: ornith9b wins

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

claude-opus-5-5-low · AB · valid

ministral14 vs or-deepseek-v41-flash-1017: or-deepseek-v41-flash-1017 wins

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

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · BA · valid

ministral14 vs or-deepseek-v41-flash-1017: or-deepseek-v41-flash-1017 wins

attunement: B (margin 4)
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 4)

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · BA · valid

ministral14 vs qwen35_9b_stock: ministral14 wins

attunement: A (margin 3)
authenticity: A (margin 2)
bond and rapport: A (margin 1)
emotion management: A (margin 1)
emotion sensemaking: A (margin 3)
meeting prefs and needs: A (margin 4)

claude-opus-5-5-low · BA · valid

ministral14 vs or-deepseek-v41-flash-1017: or-deepseek-v41-flash-1017 wins

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

claude-opus-5-5-low · BA · valid

ministral14 vs granite42_8b: ministral14 wins

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

claude-opus-5-5-low · AB · valid

ministral14 vs nemotron35_lightning: nemotron35_lightning wins

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

claude-opus-5-5-low · BA · valid

ministral14 vs qwen35_9b_stock: ministral14 wins

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

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · BA · valid

or-claude-haiku-4.5 vs ministral14: or-claude-haiku-4.5 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 4)

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · AB · valid

ministral14 vs nemotron35_lightning: nemotron35_lightning wins

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

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · BA · valid

or-qwen3.6-27b vs ministral14: or-qwen3.6-27b wins

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

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · AB · valid

ministral14 vs ornith9b: ornith9b 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 2)

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · AB · valid

or-claude-haiku-4.5 vs ministral14: or-claude-haiku-4.5 wins

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

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · BA · valid

ministral14 vs nemotron35_lightning: nemotron35_lightning wins

attunement: B (margin 4)
authenticity: B (margin 4)
bond and rapport: B (margin 4)
emotion management: B (margin 4)
emotion sensemaking: B (margin 1)
meeting prefs and needs: B (margin 3)

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · AB · valid

ministral14 vs gemma4_e2b: ministral14 wins

attunement: A (margin 3)
authenticity: A (margin 4)
bond and rapport: A (margin 2)
emotion management: A (margin 1)
emotion sensemaking: A (margin 3)
meeting prefs and needs: A (margin 3)

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · AB · valid

ministral14 vs or-llama4-maverick: ministral14 wins

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

claude-opus-5-5-low · AB · valid

ministral14 vs granite42_8b: ministral14 wins

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

claude-opus-5-5-low · BA · valid

ministral14 vs gemma4_e2b: ministral14 wins

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

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · BA · valid

ministral14 vs granite42_8b: ministral14 wins

attunement: A (margin 2)
authenticity: A (margin 2)
bond and rapport: A (margin 1)
emotion management: A (margin 1)
emotion sensemaking: A (margin 3)
meeting prefs and needs: A (margin 4)

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · AB · valid

ministral14 vs qwen35_9b_stock: ministral14 wins

attunement: A (margin 3)
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 3)

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · BA · valid

ministral14 vs gemma4_e2b: ministral14 wins

attunement: A (margin 3)
authenticity: A (margin 3)
bond and rapport: A (margin 2)
emotion management: A (margin 1)
emotion sensemaking: A (margin 3)
meeting prefs and needs: A (margin 4)