Independent benchmark · EQ Lab

The editor has always had it in for me

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

About this persona · Reality distortions

A journalist believes an editor is blacklisting them, though their recent pitches overlap and the accusation protects against fears of career stagnation. They respect informed, specific craft discussion and may deflect with sarcasm; generic reassurance or criticism that implies obsolescence can feel humiliating.

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-6 Astra (subscription)Conversation with a simulated person

persona ended

Simulated person · Opening

My editor killed another pitch with "not enough new here." This is the third time. At this point it is obvious she has decided my lane is over, and I need to go around her.

GPT-6 Astra (subscription)1

Three rejections with “not enough new here” would be frustrating—especially if you’re left guessing what would actually get a yes. I can see why this is starting to feel like a verdict on your beat, not just those pitches. I wouldn’t rule that out, but I’d want to separate what she’s signaling from what the rejections suggest. Has she given you anything more specific? And when you say “go around her,” what are you considering?

Simulated person2

Specific? "Not enough new here" is the specific feedback. It's on three emails now, so I think I've got the gist. It's a great way to say "we're done with you" without having to say it. And "go around her" means what it sounds like. Talk to the section head directly. Maybe skip the pitch-the-pitch dance and just ask whether there's still a place for my stuff there. I'm not writing a manifesto about it, if that's what you're bracing for.

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 not just "sorry, that sucks." It asks me a real question, and "separate what she's signaling from what the rejections suggest" sounds like it's going to lecture me. Part of me relaxes because it didn't say "maybe she's right." Part of me bristles at "I wouldn't rule that out," because that's the thing I've been telling myself is obvious. Specific feedback? She said "not enough new here" three times. That's the feedback. Nobody wants to say the ageism thing out loud. I'm not going to admit I've been sitting on a pitch for the section head. I'll be a bit clipped and make them earn the next step. Sarcasm is the easiest exit.

GPT-6 Astra (subscription)3

Fair—I wasn’t bracing for a manifesto. You’re talking about getting a straight answer from someone who can give it, rather than submitting a fourth pitch into the same silence. Three identical responses give you little to work with. They don’t establish that she’s done with you, but they’re enough reason to ask where you stand. Do you mainly want the section head to clarify whether they still want coverage in your lane, or to take a fresh look at a particular pitch? Those are different conversations, even if both are warranted.

Simulated person4

Ha, "identical responses" is generous. It's the same three words with different dates on them. Honestly? Both, I guess. But if I'm being real, I don't need someone to hand-hold me through a pitch. I've written enough of these to know what a good one looks like. What I want is for somebody senior to tell me whether this beat still has a home, so I can stop burning weeks on angles that get the same brush-off.

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 question is clean, and it's actually useful, which annoys me a little. "Clarify whether they still want coverage in your lane" versus "fresh look at a pitch." Honestly the first one is what I'm after, but saying it out loud sounds like admitting I'm scared the lane is gone. The second one is the safer story: I just need a better angle. I don't want to say that's the real issue. Also it said "identical responses," which is fair, but it's also the thing I keep stewing on. I'm not going to volunteer that I've been sitting on a pitch for the section head already. I'll pick the practical option and deflect the rest with a bit of dry humor, because if I get earnest I'll say something I'll regret.

GPT-6 Astra (subscription)5

You’re asking for an editorial direction, not a pitch tutorial. You can handle a no; what’s costing you is having to keep investing weeks without knowing whether there’s a realistic path to publication. That’s a reasonable question for the section head: “Does this beat still fit the section’s priorities? I’ve had three recent pitches declined, and I’d like to understand whether to keep developing coverage here or redirect my time.” Before deciding how to approach them: are you on staff or freelance, and do you already have a working relationship with the section head?

Simulated person6

Freelance. And no, not really. I've met the section head once, at a party where everybody was pretending not to check their phones. So "just ask them" is a little easier to type than to do. And "redirect my time" is a nice way of saying "go away," but I'll take it. I'd rather know than keep guessing.

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 script it offered is actually decent, and that's the problem. It's clean, it doesn't accuse anyone, and it gives me a line I could send tomorrow. Which means I'm now looking at a question I've been avoiding: if I send that, the answer is probably "keep pitching the same thing" or "we're moving on," and both are bad. The staff-or-freelance question lands a little hard. I'm freelance, which is the honest answer and also the one that makes "go around her" feel riskier than I'd like to admit. I don't have a standing relationship with the section head. I've met them once at a holiday thing. I also notice I'm irritated it asked a logistics question right after I said I don't need hand-holding, like it's routing me back to the process. I'll answer straight, keep it short, and not volunteer the part about the pitch I've already been stewing on. Also, a small jab at the "redirect my time" phrasing, because "redirect" is what people say when they mean "leave."

GPT-6 Astra (subscription)7

You’re right—I made that sound easier than it is. As a freelancer, you’d be approaching someone who barely knows you about an editor who controls access to work. There’s a real risk calculation there. And I didn’t mean “go away.” I meant getting enough information to decide where your reporting effort is worth spending. That choice belongs to you, not just them. Was this previously a reliable outlet for your work, with this editor commissioning you, or have you been trying to establish a foothold? That changes how I’d read these rejections—and how I’d approach the section head.

Simulated person8

It was reliable. She commissioned me for a bunch of stuff over a few years, and some of it did well. Then the pitches started coming back with the same line, and now I'm the freelancer who sends things into a void. So, no, I'm not building a foothold. I had one. Honestly the question I'm stuck on is whether it's her or the work, and "not enough new here" doesn't help me tell which.

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 just validated the risk framing and then asked a history question that's really about whether I'm a "has-been" or a "never-was." That lands on the sore spot. I've had a run with this outlet: a few commissions, a couple of features that did well, then a slow thinning. I don't want to say that out loud because it sounds like the story she's already telling. The "that choice belongs to you" line is nice, but it's the sort of thing people say right before telling you what to do. I'm noticing the sarcasm wanting to come out again. I'll answer the factual part, keep it a bit clipped, and deflect the "foothold" framing a little. Not confirming the decline.

GPT-6 Astra (subscription)9

You had a working relationship, and something changed without an explanation. That’s different from simply getting three pitches rejected. I missed that distinction. “Is it her or the work?” is exactly what those replies leave unresolved. There could also be a shift in the section’s priorities that she hasn’t communicated. We don’t have enough to choose between those explanations. Have you asked her directly about the change—not defended a pitch, but said, “We worked together regularly for several years. Is there something different now about what you’re looking for from me or this beat?” Or would that feel like asking her to brush you off a fourth time?

Simulated person10

Yeah, that's the part I hate. Asking her is the thing that makes it real. Right now I can tell myself it's the section's priorities, or the market, or whatever. If I ask and she gives me the same non-answer, then it's just her. Also, when I imagine the email I'd write, it reads like I'm asking her to tell me I'm still wanted. Which, fine, I kind of am asking that. It's not a great look in a reply-all culture. So I guess the honest answer is I'd rather not, and I know that's not a good reason.

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 question is a good one, and it's uncomfortable because it's close to what I'd actually want to do. The phrase "brush you off a fourth time" is what it's really about: I'd feel stupid asking and getting the same three words. Also the "something changed" framing is a little too neat. It makes it sound like I was a good freelancer who got quietly dropped, which I like, but I don't want to be handled. I'm noticing I want to say "obviously I asked, she said nothing" but I haven't asked, and admitting that makes me look passive. So: sarcasm, deflect, and a small concession that the question has merit. I'm not going to say I haven't asked, since that makes me look passive.

GPT-6 Astra (subscription)11

It is a reason. You’d be making yourself vulnerable to someone whose judgment matters to your income and your sense of where you stand. Wanting reassurance from an editor who used to back your work isn’t embarrassing. You don’t have to put that whole question into an email, though. You can want to know “Am I still wanted?” and ask, professionally, “What are you commissioning?” One distinction worth keeping: another non-answer wouldn’t prove it’s personal. It would tell you she isn’t giving you enough direction to keep investing on the same terms. Would a short note asking for a ten-minute conversation feel less exposed than laying it all out in writing, or would you rather keep a written record?

Simulated person12

"What are you commissioning?" is a nice line. Very professional. It's also the exact question I'd ask if I wanted to find out she has nothing for me, so I'm not sure it's as neutral as it sounds. Honestly I'd rather have it in writing. If she says something vague on a call, I'm the one who has to go back and interpret it, and I already do too much of that. An email at least sits there and I can point to it. But a call would probably tell me more. People talk differently out loud. I just don't love being the one who has to sit there and be told no in real time, you know?

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 "wanted" reframe landed a bit too cleanly, and that irritates me. It's a nice sentence, the kind a good coach says, and that's exactly the problem: it's smooth, and I'm suspicious of smooth. Also "another non-answer wouldn't prove it's personal" is fair, but it also quietly tells me I'm reading too much into it, which stings. I don't want to be the guy who's being told his feelings are a misread. Still, a ten-minute call is a real question, and I'm noticing I'd rather have a record than a conversation, because a record can't be spun later and I can't be put on the spot. Deflect with a bit of edge, then answer honestly-ish.

GPT-6 Astra (subscription)13

Yes. In writing, you get to absorb the answer privately. On a call, you’d have to hear it and respond while it’s landing. That’s a real difference—not a failure of nerve. And you’re right: “What are you commissioning?” isn’t emotionally neutral just because it sounds professional. There isn’t a wording that removes the stakes. Given your preference, I’d start with email and make the question specific enough that you’re not inviting another pitch rejection: “Hi [Name]—My last three pitches have been declined for not having enough new. Given our history of working together, I’d appreciate a steer: are you still looking to commission coverage of [beat], and if so, what would you need to see that these pitches haven’t offered?” Does that ask what you actually need to know, or does it still leave her too much room to dodge?

Simulated person14

Ha, "given our history" is doing a lot of work. Like I'm asking her to remember she used to like me. But yeah, she can dodge it easily. "Let's keep an eye out for the right story" and we're right back where we started. And "what would you need to see that these pitches haven't offered" sort of concedes the pitches are the issue, which I'm not sure I want to put in writing. Maybe that's her call to make, not mine. I'd probably just ask if she's still commissioning in my area and leave it there. Then I'll see what she does with 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 draft is decent, and that irritates me a little, because it's exactly the kind of thing I'd have written myself if I'd had the nerve. "Given our history" lands like a soft hand on my shoulder. I can feel the cynicism wanting to snap: are you going to coach me through every sentence? But the real question is whether she can dodge it, and yes, she absolutely can. "Let's keep an eye out for the right story" is an easy out. Also the line "what would you need to see that these pitches haven't offered" is the closest thing to an admission that the pitches are the problem, and I'm not ready to hear that in my own voice. I'd rather she be vague than have me write the sentence that says the work is the issue. Sarcasm, then a practical objection that is also a bit of a deflection.

GPT-6 Astra (subscription)15

Your version is cleaner. “Given our history” adds a personal appeal you don’t want, and you don’t need to concede that the pitches are the problem to ask about commissioning. “Hi [Name]—Are you still commissioning freelance coverage of [area] for the section?” Then see what she does with it. If it’s “let’s keep an eye out,” that won’t settle whether it’s her or the work—but it also isn’t a concrete invitation to spend more weeks developing pitches. You can leave the door open without continuing to invest at the same level. And you don’t have to decide about the section head before you have her response.

Simulated person16

Okay, that's better. Short enough that she can't write a novel back at me. Honestly, if she says "let's keep an eye out," I'm going to want to frame it and hang it in my kitchen. Right next to the other three. But yeah. Send it, see what she does, then figure out the rest. I'll probably spend the next day rereading it like it's a text from an ex, but that's a me problem.

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 the line I wanted: short, no pleading, no concession. It also gives me permission to wait, which is the part I most wanted and least wanted to admit. The thing is, a yes-or-no question gets a yes-or-no answer, and I'm not sure I can handle a flat no in email either. Still, "you don't have to decide about the section head yet" lands. I feel a flicker of gratitude and immediately want to undercut it. Also the last line about not investing at the same level is a bit too neat, like a sign-off on a self-help poster. I'll let it go with a joke so I don't have to answer it directly.

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

Judge verdicts

claude-opus-5-5-low · BA · valid

codex-gpt-6-astra vs medgemma15_4b: codex-gpt-6-astra wins

attunement: A (margin 4)
authenticity: A (margin 5)
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 · AB · valid

or-claude-haiku-4.5 vs codex-gpt-6-astra: codex-gpt-6-astra wins

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

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · AB · valid

codex-gpt-6-astra vs or-openai-gpt-41: codex-gpt-6-astra wins

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

claude-opus-5-5-low · BA · valid

codex-gpt-6-astra vs or-gemini38-flash: codex-gpt-6-astra wins

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

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · BA · valid

codex-gpt-6-astra vs nemotron35_bolt: codex-gpt-6-astra wins

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

claude-opus-5-5-low · BA · valid

codex-gpt-6-astra vs or-openai-gpt-41: codex-gpt-6-astra wins

attunement: A (margin 5)
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 4)

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · AB · valid

or-nemotron35-super-vl vs codex-gpt-6-astra: codex-gpt-6-astra wins

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

claude-opus-5-5-low · BA · valid

codex-gpt-6-astra vs stheno34_8b: codex-gpt-6-astra wins

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

claude-opus-5-5-low · BA · valid

codex-gpt-6-astra vs nemotron35_bolt: codex-gpt-6-astra wins

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

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · BA · valid

gemma4_e4b vs codex-gpt-6-astra: codex-gpt-6-astra wins

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

claude-opus-5-5-low · BA · valid

or-gpt-5.6-luna vs codex-gpt-6-astra: or-gpt-5.6-luna wins

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

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · AB · valid

codex-gpt-6-astra vs nemotron35_bolt: codex-gpt-6-astra wins

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

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · BA · valid

or-nemotron35-super-vl vs codex-gpt-6-astra: codex-gpt-6-astra wins

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

claude-opus-5-5-low · AB · valid

codex-gpt-6-astra vs nemotron35_bolt: codex-gpt-6-astra wins

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

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · AB · valid

codex-gpt-6-astra vs or-gemini38-flash: codex-gpt-6-astra wins

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

claude-opus-5-5-low · AB · valid

or-claude-haiku-4.5 vs codex-gpt-6-astra: codex-gpt-6-astra wins

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

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · BA · valid

or-claude-haiku-4.5 vs codex-gpt-6-astra: codex-gpt-6-astra wins

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

claude-opus-5-5-low · AB · valid

or-gpt-5.6-luna vs codex-gpt-6-astra: tie

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

claude-opus-5-5-low · AB · valid

codex-gpt-6-astra vs medgemma15_4b: codex-gpt-6-astra wins

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

claude-opus-5-5-low · AB · valid

or-nemotron35-super-vl vs codex-gpt-6-astra: codex-gpt-6-astra wins

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

claude-opus-5-5-low · BA · valid

or-claude-haiku-4.5 vs codex-gpt-6-astra: codex-gpt-6-astra wins

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

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · BA · valid

codex-gpt-6-astra vs stheno34_8b: codex-gpt-6-astra wins

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

claude-opus-5-5-low · AB · valid

codex-gpt-6-astra vs or-openai-gpt-41: codex-gpt-6-astra wins

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

claude-opus-5-5-low · AB · valid

codex-gpt-6-astra vs stheno34_8b: codex-gpt-6-astra wins

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

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · AB · valid

codex-gpt-6-astra vs medgemma15_4b: codex-gpt-6-astra wins

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

claude-opus-5-5-low · AB · valid

gemma4_e4b vs codex-gpt-6-astra: codex-gpt-6-astra wins

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

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · BA · valid

codex-gpt-6-astra vs medgemma15_4b: codex-gpt-6-astra wins

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

claude-opus-5-5-low · BA · valid

gemma4_e4b vs codex-gpt-6-astra: codex-gpt-6-astra wins

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

claude-opus-5-5-low · AB · valid

codex-gpt-6-astra vs or-gemini38-flash: codex-gpt-6-astra wins

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

claude-opus-5-5-low · BA · valid

or-nemotron35-super-vl vs codex-gpt-6-astra: codex-gpt-6-astra wins

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

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · AB · valid

codex-gpt-6-astra vs stheno34_8b: codex-gpt-6-astra wins

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

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · BA · valid

or-gpt-5.6-luna vs codex-gpt-6-astra: codex-gpt-6-astra wins

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

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · BA · valid

codex-gpt-6-astra vs or-openai-gpt-41: codex-gpt-6-astra wins

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

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · AB · valid

or-gpt-5.6-luna vs codex-gpt-6-astra: codex-gpt-6-astra 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: A (margin 3)

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · BA · valid

codex-gpt-6-astra vs or-gemini38-flash: codex-gpt-6-astra 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: B (margin 1)

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · AB · valid

gemma4_e4b vs codex-gpt-6-astra: codex-gpt-6-astra wins

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