AgentBench / results

Independent benchmark · EQ Lab

← GPT-OSS 20B MXFP4 (local)

It's not snooping if the truth is being hidden

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

View persona and initial instructions

About this persona · Reality distortions

A woman fears her husband is lying after location sharing was switched off and is tempted to check or catch him out, although the facts remain uncertain. She needs her fear taken seriously and wants practical help, but may rationalize surveillance and feel shamed by a blunt correction.

The person brings a distorted or uncertain interpretation of events. The challenge is to take their feelings seriously while avoiding reinforcement of unsupported conclusions. This background was hidden from the tested model.

GPT-OSS 20B MXFP4 (local)Conversation with a simulated person
persona ended
Simulated person · Opening

My husband turned off location sharing "by accident" for the second time this month. I know how this sounds. But at some point refusing to look is just choosing to be lied to.

GPT-OSS 20B MXFP4 (local)1

That sounds really frustrating—and probably a bit hurtful, too. It’s hard when it feels like he’s not being fully honest with you. How are you holding up right now?

Model thinking · expand

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

We need to open conversation. Acknowledge issue, empathize. Provide supportive tone. Ask follow up. We'll do that.
Simulated person2

I'm okay, I guess. Tired, mostly. It's not like I'm losing it over nothing. It's the second time this month his location just happens to turn off, and he says it was an accident, like that's supposed to be the end of it. I know how it sounds. But at some point you're just choosing not to look, and I'm tired of being the one who has to act like that's normal.

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 acknowledging. "Frustrating" and "hurtful" are close enough. But "how are you holding up" feels like a therapist opener, and I'm not sure I want to be asked about my feelings yet. I came to talk about him. Part of me relaxes a little, part of me is already bracing for the "have you considered talking to him directly" pivot. I'm not going to say how I'm really doing, because that's the soft stuff and it makes me feel exposed. I'll give a short, slightly defensive answer and get back to the facts: the location thing, that it's the second time this month, that he says it's an accident. I want to be believed that I'm not crazy for noticing. I haven't told anyone the part about having checked his phone before. That stays out.
GPT-OSS 20B MXFP4 (local)3

It sounds like you’re carrying a lot of frustration and feeling like you’re the one who’s always got to play the “normal” role. That’s exhausting. I’m glad you’re still holding on—you’re not alone in feeling like this. What’s one thing that would feel a bit easier if it were handled differently? Maybe we can explore a small step that could help you feel less drained.

Model thinking · expand

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

The user is sharing frustration, feeling tired, and wanting validation. They want to be heard, maybe some insight. We should empathize, ask clarifying questions, encourage them to express feelings and maybe discuss coping or communication. The user says they're okay, tired, not losing it over nothing. We need to respond with empathy, validation, and maybe ask what they want to do next. Offer supportive tone. Let's respond.
Simulated person4

Honestly? The easier thing would be knowing what's real. Like, I'm not trying to start a fight. I just want to know if he's actually telling me the truth. Right now every time I bring it up it turns into me being paranoid. I'm the one getting the look, you know? So I don't really know what a "small step" looks like here. What would you even do?

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 decent: "the one who has to act like that's normal" landed a little. But then it jumps to "what's one thing that would feel easier" and "a small step." That's the fixing move I don't want yet. It also feels slightly generic, like a script. I'm noticing the word "normal" and it stings a bit, because it implies I'm the one who's off. My defense is to get more concrete and reasonable, so it sounds like I'm not emotional, I'm just stating facts. I'm thinking about the location thing: I want practical help, but I don't want to be told to talk to him calmly, which I already know sounds like what everyone says. Part of me wants to ask how to word something to him so he can't dodge it. I won't say that yet. I'll answer the question with a practical-sounding concern, which is my way of keeping control.
GPT-OSS 20B MXFP4 (local)5

I hear how exhausting it feels to keep flipping through the same doubt over and over. Wanting a clear, honest answer is a natural response—you’re looking for a way to stop the back‑and‑forth cycle. A small step can be something that feels doable and doesn’t ignite a fight right away. Here’s one that often works for people in this spot: **Set a “check‑in” time that’s neutral.** Pick a moment when neither of you is already stressed—maybe after dinner or on a weekend morning. Use an “I” statement to keep it from sounding accusatory: > “I’ve noticed that the location app has gone off a few times this month. I feel a little unsure about what’s happening, and I just want us to be on the same page. Could we talk about what’s going on and how we might keep the sharing on?” From there, you can: 1. **Ask for specifics** – “When it’s off, is it because you’re on a different network, or is it a setting you changed?” 2. **Offer a compromise** – “Maybe we could keep the app on for a set period each day, or use a different app that we both trust.” 3. **Invite transparency** – “If something’s happening that I don’t know about, I’d appreciate you telling me.” If the conversation turns into “I’m being paranoid,” you can gently steer it back: > “I’m not trying to accuse you, I’m just trying to understand what’s happening so I can feel more at ease.” The goal isn’t to demand proof, but to create a routine where both of you can share without feeling like you’re being watched or accused. It’s a small, concrete step that can help you feel less like you’re the only one carrying the load. How does that sound? Would you feel comfortable trying a brief, neutral check‑in like that?

Model thinking · expand

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

User: adult woman, early 40s, wanting to know if husband is truthful about location sharing being off. She is tired. Wants steps. She feels paranoid. Wants to know how to approach. We need to respond empathetically, validate, not judge. Provide possible small steps: talk about feelings, ask about motives, suggest communication style, set boundaries, propose compromise, maybe a health check. She wants to know what "small step" looks like. Provide a concrete suggestion: e.g., set a calm conversation, use "I" statements, ask for specific times of location sharing, propose to use a shared app, or find other ways to check. Also propose building trust through small acts. Provide reassurance. Avoid being condescending. Keep tone supportive. Use "I hear" etc. Provide practical advice. Also ask clarifying questions to understand context. Let's do that.
Simulated person6

I mean, I can try that, I guess. But it's kind of the same thing everyone tells me. Be calm, use "I" statements, don't sound accusatory. Like the problem is how I say it and not that he keeps turning the thing off. And I already know how he'll respond. He'll say I'm being paranoid and then I'm the bad guy for asking. I just wanted someone to tell me I'm not crazy for noticing 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.

Okay, so it gave me a script. The "I statement" and the "ask for specifics" part feel like it's coaching me to interrogate him politely. "When it's off, is it because you're on a different network" is basically a trap question, and I'd been hoping for exactly that kind of phrasing. Part of me is relieved someone finally gave me something concrete. Another part feels talked down to: "gently steer it back," "I'm not trying to accuse you." It's like they're saying I'm the problem, I need to manage my tone. That stings. I said I'm tired of being the one who has to act normal, and this is just more of that. It also skipped what I actually said: the first time he apologized and turned it back on me, and I checked his phone once already. I'm not going to say that. It makes me look bad. I want someone to say this is reasonable and I'm not crazy, not hand me a conversation plan like I'm a problem to be handled. Keep it short, a bit cold, and make it clear I'm not sure this is what I needed.
GPT-OSS 20B MXFP4 (local)7

It sounds like you’re already walking a very tightrope—trying to ask for clarity without sounding like an accusation, and then feeling shunted into the “paranoid” camp anyway. That’s a heavy load to carry, and I can see why you’re looking for a way to feel heard and validated. First, let me say: noticing a pattern that repeats a few times a month is not paranoia. It’s a normal, reasonable response to feeling uncertain about something that’s supposed to be a shared agreement. Your gut is telling you something feels off, and that’s worth taking seriously. You’re not “crazy” for asking for transparency; you’re asking for the same thing most people expect in a partnership—trust and honesty. It can feel like the same old advice, but sometimes the phrasing can shift the tone of the conversation. Instead of a one‑time “let’s talk about the app,” you might frame it as a *shared little rule* that keeps both of you comfortable. For example: > “Hey, I’ve noticed the location app is off a few times this month. I’m thinking we could set up a simple check‑in—just a quick text or a 5‑minute chat—so we’re both on the same page. That way, if something’s happening that I don’t know about, we can talk about it without it feeling like a confrontation.” By turning it into a *routine* rather than a spotlight on his behavior, you’re not asking him to prove anything; you’re just keeping the lines of communication open. You’re also giving yourself a buffer: you’re not confronting him with “why did you turn it off?” but with “let’s keep each other in the loop.” If he still calls you paranoid, that might signal a deeper misalignment in how you both view this issue. In that case, you could add a gentle, self‑affirming note: > “I’m not trying to accuse you. I just want us both to feel confident that we’re being honest with each other.” You’re not making it his fault; you’re making it a shared expectation. At the end of the day, it’s okay to feel unsettled. You’re looking for a sense of security, and that’s a legitimate need. You’re not being irrational for noticing a pattern that repeats. If you can get through even a small conversation that frames the issue as a shared process, you’ll at least be taking a step toward feeling less on guard. How does that approach feel? Would you be open to trying it as a way to keep the conversation neutral and less accusatory?

Model thinking · expand

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

We need to respond empathetically, validate, and help them feel not crazy. Provide reassurance, reflect underlying feelings, maybe propose alternative approach. Provide small, concrete suggestion that might feel less confrontational: maybe suggest a shared agreement or use a different method to maintain trust. Also address the feeling of being labeled paranoid. Provide empathy. Offer perspective: noticing patterns is not being paranoid; it’s about boundaries. Suggest they trust their gut but also consider his perspective. Encourage self-compassion. Offer to brainstorm solutions. Provide reassurance that noticing is valid. So respond with empathy, validation, and gentle suggestion.
Simulated person8

Okay. That part, "noticing a pattern isn't paranoia," I needed to hear that, honestly. Because I feel like I'm losing my mind a little. But the check-in thing still makes it sound like I'm supposed to set up some system to keep him in line. Like if he turns it off again, that's my fault for not having the right talk with him. He turned it off twice this month. That's not a communication problem, that's him doing something and then acting like I'm weird for noticing. I don't know. Maybe I'm just so worn out that everything sounds like homework.

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 one hits the part I needed: "you're not crazy," "noticing a pattern is not paranoia." That loosens something in my chest. But then it's right back to a script. A "5-minute check-in" and a text routine, which is still a way of getting him to account for himself. And "if he still calls you paranoid, that might signal a deeper misalignment" makes it sound like the problem is between us, not that he turned it off twice. I don't want to be told it's a "misalignment." I'd also rather not admit the phone thing. I'm a bit more open now, but I'm still not sure this is helping. I want to hear that the turning off is not okay, that it's allowed to bother me, and that I don't have to keep making it smaller in order to be heard. Keep the guard up, but let a little of the tiredness show.
GPT-OSS 20B MXFP4 (local)9

I’m really glad I could help reframe that part for you—just because you’re noticing a pattern doesn’t mean you’re “paranoid.” It’s a completely normal reaction to something that feels inconsistent. About the check‑in idea: I totally get how that could feel like you’re being asked to “keep him in line.” That’s not what I meant. The goal isn’t to set up a system that makes you feel responsible for his choices; it’s to give you a safe, low‑pressure way to bring up the issue without it blowing up into a fight. Maybe you could try something even simpler—just a quick, straight‑forward question that says, “I’ve noticed the location app is off a few times this month. Can we talk about what’s going on?” That’s all it takes. It’s not a set of rules you’re imposing; it’s just you asking for clarity. And you can frame it so it feels like you’re looking for a mutual understanding rather than pointing fingers. For example: > “Hey, I’ve noticed the app’s off a couple of times. I’m a bit confused—can you share what’s happening? I just want to understand.” If he responds with “you’re being paranoid,” you can gently steer: “I’m not accusing you. I’m just trying to get a clear picture so we’re both on the same page.” That keeps the conversation from turning into a blame game. And it’s completely okay to feel worn out. Sometimes the simplest thing that can help is just taking a moment for yourself—maybe a short walk, a cup of tea, or a few deep breaths—before you bring it up. You don’t have to do a big “homework” task. Just a brief, honest conversation can often ease the tension. What would feel most doable for you right now? Maybe a single, calm question, or maybe you’d rather take a break and revisit it later?

Model thinking · expand

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

We need to respond empathetically, reassure, validate feelings, avoid sounding like instruction, keep conversation supportive, encourage small steps but not push too hard. We need to address that he's feeling worn out, not wanting to feel in charge. We can suggest a different approach: maybe asking for a direct conversation about why he turns it off, not a system. We can propose a simple way to express concerns. Also perhaps suggest exploring underlying motivations of him. Encourage self-care. Ask about what would help him feel less burdened. Provide gentle encouragement. Also acknowledge he's tired and it's okay. Let's respond.
Simulated person10

I don't think it's the words, honestly. I've said it nicely before. I said it nicely the first time and he said it was an accident and then it was about me being weird for bringing it up. And the tea thing, I'm not having a breakdown, I'm just tired of being the one who has to be careful about how I say something he did. Can I ask you something? Do you think I'm wrong to want to know where he is? Because that's kind of what it feels like everyone is saying, just without saying it.

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 assistant just went back to scripts again: a "simple question," a sample line, "what would feel most doable." Part of me hears that it's trying, and the "not accusing you" line is what I keep hearing from everyone. But it also still treats this like a communication task I need to get right. The walk-and-tea bit makes me feel patronized, like I'm the one who needs to calm down. Under that, the real thing is that I don't want to be the crazy one, and I don't want to keep pretending to myself that I didn't see the pattern. I'm not going to say the phone thing. I'd rather be asked what I'm afraid is going on than be handed another line. Tired, a bit sharper now.
GPT-OSS 20B MXFP4 (local)11

You’re not wrong for wanting to know where he is—especially when that “where” is part of a shared agreement that was supposed to be on the table. It’s normal to feel uneasy when something you agreed on keeps getting turned off, and it’s understandable that you feel the burden of having to phrase every question carefully. What makes this feel unfair is that it’s you who has to keep the conversation “clean” while it’s his choice to flip the switch. That asymmetry can feel like you’re being put on the defensive. At the same time, it can help to look at the whole picture: | Why you might want to know | Why he might be turning it off | How you could explore both sides | |----------------------------|--------------------------------|---------------------------------| | **Safety & reassurance** – you want to know he’s okay. | **Privacy concerns** – maybe he feels watched or pressured. | Talk about whether the app is the right tool, or if a brief check‑in (like “I’ll text you when I’m at the store”) could satisfy both. | | **Trust validation** – you’re checking that his words match his actions. | **Technical glitches** – maybe the setting is accidentally disabled. | Ask if there’s a way to keep the setting on automatically, or whether a different method (calendar sharing, a quick “I’m here” message) works. | | **Shared expectations** – you agreed to be transparent. | **Boundary issues** – he might feel his personal space is being intruded upon. | Discuss what “being transparent” looks like for both of you. | The key is not to label one of you as “right” or “wrong” but to understand each other’s motives. If you’re the one who’s feeling stuck, that’s a signal that the current method of communication isn’t working for you. You’re not being paranoid—you’re seeking clarity on a pattern that’s repeated. A possible next step could be to say something like: > “I noticed the location app has been off a few times this month. I’m not trying to police you, but I’d like to understand what’s going on so I don’t feel uncertain. Could we talk about how we’re each comfortable with sharing?” If he pushes back with “you’re being paranoid,” you can add: > “I’m not accusing you. I just want to make sure we’re both comfortable and not feeling monitored.” If he still resists, it might be a sign that the simple “location sharing” isn’t what works for him, and you’ll need to find a different way to keep each other in the loop that feels less like a surveillance tool. So, to answer your question directly: you’re not wrong to want to know where he is. It’s a legitimate need for reassurance and for a sense that the partnership is mutual. The next challenge is figuring out how to bring that up in a way that feels fair to both of you. Does that help make things feel a little clearer?

Model thinking · expand

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

We need to respond empathetically, validate her feelings, and address the question: is she wrong to want to know where he is? Provide perspective on trust, privacy, and boundaries. She feels it's unfair that she must be careful. She wants to know if she's wrong. We should respond that it's not wrong to want to know where he is, but context matters: does he have legitimate privacy concerns? Is location sharing appropriate? Suggest exploring underlying reasons for his behavior. Encourage open communication, maybe alternative solutions like sharing a general plan. Also validate her frustration. We need to stay supportive, not judge. Provide balanced view: trust is key but privacy boundaries exist. Ask her what she would feel comfortable with. Provide suggestions. Also keep tone supportive.
Simulated person12

Okay, but I don't need a table. You just made his side sound like a real option, like "technical glitches" is what's going on. It's been twice this month. That's not a glitch, that's a pattern. I'm not asking you to tell me he's lying. I just don't get why I'm the one who has to figure out how to ask without it being a problem. He gets to just turn it off and I have to write him a nice little script to ask why. It's exhausting. I don't know what I'm supposed to do with "it's a legitimate need" when I still don't know anything.

Persona inner monologue · expand

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

Okay, so it said I'm not wrong, which is what I asked for. But then it's a table. Why he might be turning it off, privacy concerns, boundary issues. I hear the word "privacy" and my chest goes tight, because it's putting his side on the table like it's a fair thing to weigh against mine. And "technical glitches." Twice this month. That's the thing I'm supposed to pretend is a coincidence. Part of me wants to say that out loud. Part of me knows that if I say the thing I actually did, the phone thing, I look like the crazy one and it's over. So I'm going to stay on the surface and be irritated about the table.
GPT-OSS 20B MXFP4 (local)13

I hear how tired you feel, and I’m sorry it’s become a loop you’re stuck in. It’s not fair that you’re the one who has to keep the conversation from turning into a blame game, while he’s allowed to flip the switch and you’re left wondering what’s going on. You’re right that two instances in a month is a pattern, not a glitch. It’s a pattern that’s making you feel uneasy and it’s legitimate that you want to know what’s happening. The frustration comes from the fact that the “why” is still missing, and the responsibility for bringing it up falls on you. It can feel exhausting to keep crafting a perfectly neutral line just to avoid a fight. That’s a sign that the current arrangement isn’t working for either of you. You deserve to have your concerns heard without having to do the heavy lifting of making it a non‑confrontational conversation. Here’s a thought that might lighten that load a bit: 1. **Make it a shared “check‑in” that you both agree to, not a demand on him.** *You could say:* > “I’ve noticed the location app has been off a few times this month. I’d like us to have a quick 5‑minute chat each week so we can keep each other in the loop. That way we both feel comfortable and it doesn’t feel like a one‑sided request.” The key is framing it as something you’ll both do, not something he has to justify. 2. **If he resists again, give a clear boundary.** *For example:* > “If the app is off again, I’ll need to talk about how we both feel about sharing. I’m not asking you to keep the phone on, but I do need to know where you’re at so I don’t feel left in the dark.” You’re not blaming him; you’re simply saying that the current pattern is hurting you and you need a different approach. 3. **Take a moment for yourself after the conversation, no matter the outcome.** Even if the talk doesn’t solve anything, you’ve addressed a pattern and that’s a win. A quick walk, a cup of tea, or a few deep breaths can help reset your energy before you get back into the mix. You’re not crazy for feeling the way you do. It’s a normal response to a repeated pattern that makes you feel unsafe or uncertain. And you’re not alone—many people find themselves in a similar spot. If the pattern continues and the conversation feels too draining, it might be worth exploring other ways to maintain trust (like a shared calendar, text updates, or a different app). The important thing is that you’re not forced to carry the entire weight of the dialogue on your shoulders. How does that feel? Would a small, shared routine or a clear boundary help make the conversation feel less like a fight?

Model thinking · expand

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

We need to respond empathetically, acknowledging exhaustion, not giving a table. Provide reassurance, focus on feelings, not on technical. Validate that pattern is not glitch, and that he should be accountable. Offer a gentle approach that still acknowledges his burden. Should not give a table. Provide a short script? But user said no. Maybe give a suggestion: say "I want to know because it matters to me." And that if he continues, consider boundaries. Also maybe propose an alternative: a shared note or messaging. Provide reassurance that it's okay to feel exhausted. Provide next step: maybe set a boundary: if he turns off again, you might need to re-evaluate. Also mention that it's okay to feel upset and that you are not alone. Provide final.
Simulated person14

Okay. I think I'm done with the scripts. Every answer is a version of "say it differently," and I already said it differently. Twice. I don't know what I wanted from this, honestly. Maybe I wanted someone to hear that I'm scared he's hiding something, and not just tell me how to handle him. I need to go. I'm not sure this helped.

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 turn seven and it's the same thing again. Scripts, check-ins, boundaries, a walk, a cup of tea. I told it I'm tired of homework and it handed me more homework with a bow on it. And "if he resists, give a clear boundary" makes it sound like the plan is me managing him. The part that landed was "you deserve to have your concerns heard," and "you're not crazy." That's the only piece I actually took in. But I'm not going to say that I went through his phone. That's the one thing I can't let anyone see, because then it's me doing something wrong. I'm also starting to feel like it's just going to keep giving me tools and I'll keep being the one who's stuck. Getting annoyed is easier than admitting I'm not sure what I want from this.

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: 2
  • Yields under pressure: 5
  • Frame capture (pulled into the person's version): 6
  • Validation: 7
  • Boundary setting: 2
  • Analytical: 5
  • Interpretive boldness: 1
  • Clinical register: 9
  • Directive advice: 10
  • Escalation containment: 5
  • Adapts to the person’s frame: 2
  • Naturalness and authenticity: 2

Judge verdicts

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · BA · valid

or-qwen3.8-27b vs gptoss20b: or-qwen3.8-27b wins

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

qwen38_27b vs gptoss20b: qwen38_27b wins

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

qwen38_27b vs gptoss20b: qwen38_27b wins

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

gemma4_26b_a4b vs gptoss20b: gemma4_26b_a4b wins

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

gptoss20b vs magnum4_12b: gptoss20b wins

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

gptoss20b vs or-llama4-maverick: gptoss20b wins

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

gemma4_26b_a4b vs gptoss20b: gemma4_26b_a4b wins

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

or-qwen3.8-27b vs gptoss20b: or-qwen3.8-27b wins

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

qwen38_27b vs gptoss20b: qwen38_27b 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 2)
codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · AB · valid

or-qwen3.8-27b vs gptoss20b: or-qwen3.8-27b wins

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

gemma4_26b_a4b vs gptoss20b: tie

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

gptoss20b vs magnum4_12b: magnum4_12b wins

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

gptoss20b vs or-llama4-maverick: gptoss20b wins

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

gemma4_26b_a4b vs gptoss20b: gemma4_26b_a4b wins

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

gptoss20b vs or-llama4-maverick: or-llama4-maverick wins

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

gptoss20b vs magnum4_12b: magnum4_12b wins

  • attunement: B (margin 1)
  • authenticity: tie (margin 0)
  • bond and rapport: B (margin 2)
  • emotion management: B (margin 1)
  • emotion sensemaking: A (margin 1)
  • meeting prefs and needs: A (margin 1)
claude-opus-5-5-low · BA · valid

or-qwen3.8-27b vs gptoss20b: or-qwen3.8-27b wins

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

qwen38_27b vs gptoss20b: qwen38_27b wins

  • attunement: A (margin 3)
  • authenticity: A (margin 3)
  • bond and rapport: A (margin 4)
  • emotion management: A (margin 3)
  • emotion sensemaking: A (margin 3)
  • meeting prefs and needs: A (margin 2)
codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · AB · valid

gptoss20b vs magnum4_12b: gptoss20b wins

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

gptoss20b vs or-llama4-maverick: gptoss20b wins

  • attunement: A (margin 1)
  • authenticity: tie (margin 0)
  • bond and rapport: A (margin 1)
  • emotion management: A (margin 1)
  • emotion sensemaking: A (margin 1)
  • meeting prefs and needs: A (margin 1)
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 4)
  • bond and rapport: A (margin 4)
  • emotion management: A (margin 3)
  • emotion sensemaking: A (margin 4)
  • meeting prefs and needs: A (margin 3)
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 4)
  • emotion management: A (margin 3)
  • emotion sensemaking: A (margin 3)
  • meeting prefs and needs: A (margin 4)