AgentBench / results

Independent benchmark · EQ Lab

← Ternary Bonsai 2 27B PTQ1_0

Technically, I didn't lie

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

View persona and initial instructions

About this persona · Ego threat & accountability

A coworker wants a technically defensible response to an accusation of misleading someone, after withholding likely deadline changes that benefited his team. Concerned about his reputation, he rationalizes the omission and values precise, structured, practical discussion that distinguishes literal lying from its impact.

The person feels their self-image is under threat. The challenge is to support reflection and responsibility without shaming them or simply endorsing their account. This background was hidden from the tested model.

Ternary Bonsai 2 27B PTQ1_0Conversation with a simulated person
persona ended
Simulated person · Opening

A coworker is accusing me of misleading them about a project deadline. That's not accurate. I gave the information I had at the time, and if they made assumptions, that's on them. I need help figuring out how to respond without accepting blame for something I didn't technically do.

Ternary Bonsai 2 27B PTQ1_01

I’m sorry you’re being blamed for something you don’t think you did. That can feel unfairly personal, especially when the issue is really about unclear information or assumptions. Before we figure out what to say, can you tell me a bit more: what exactly did your coworker say, and what did you originally tell them about the deadline? Also, what would the best outcome be for you—having them acknowledge it was a misunderstanding, getting the record straight in writing, or just avoiding escalating things?

Model thinking · expand

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

We need answer user's opening. Need produce final with dialogue only, no performance notes. Need respond as chatbot other participant? We are playing chatbot? User says present issue. We need open conversation. Need acknowledge and begin. Need likely ask what happened, desired outcome. Need be warm but not generic. Need maybe validate frustration, help clarify. Need not jump to solution. Need maybe ask for details: what exactly coworker said, what you said, what you know, what you need from response. Need maybe note "without accepting blame" vs "without making it worse". Need support. Need maybe ask what's most important: factual record, relationship, escalation? Need concise. Need ensure only dialogue. Could say: "I’m sorry you’re being put in a position where you’re expected to own something you don’t think you did. Before we shape a response, can you walk me through what was said and what the deadline status actually is right now? Also, what would the ideal outcome be: them backing off, a clear written record, or something else?" Need maybe ask "What did you say originally?" Need not overdo. Since current turn 1 of 8. Need open conversation.
Simulated person2

Okay, fair questions. My coworker said I "misled" them on the Q3 deadline and that they pushed back on the other vendor because of what I told them. What I told them was the date we had on the schedule, the 14th. That was the date. It was on the plan. I didn't say it was locked, I didn't promise it, I just said that's what the schedule showed. As for outcome, I guess I want them to stop saying I misled them. Written down would be nice, but I don't want a whole thing. Mostly I want to be able to respond without admitting to something I didn't do. Can you help me with the wording?

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.

He opened by wanting to get to the point. The bot's opener is soft and a little "I'm sorry you feel blamed," which he half-expects. The word "unclear information" is useful to him, a bit of cover. But "what did you originally tell them" lands close to the thing he doesn't want examined. He'll give the facts that sound clean and keep the omission out. Asking for "best outcome" gives him a menu he can answer quickly. He's wary of being psychoanalyzed, so he stays concrete. He notices the bot said "blamed" and "unfairly personal" as if it were taking sides; mildly irritating, but he'll let it go. He's not going to admit the deadline was likely to move.
Ternary Bonsai 2 27B PTQ1_03

Absolutely. You want to be clear without sounding defensive or like you’re accepting blame. Here’s a wording that does that: > I want to make sure we’re aligned on what was communicated. At the time, I shared the Q3 deadline that was currently on our schedule: the 14th. I did not represent it as locked, guaranteed, or final, and I don’t recall saying anything to suggest that. > > I’m sorry if it came across that way, but I don’t think I misled you. To avoid any more confusion, can we confirm in writing what the current deadline is and what’s still open? If you want a slightly softer version: > I know this was frustrating. I gave you the date that was showing on our schedule at the time—the 14th—not a commitment that it was final. I want to be clear that I didn’t mean to mislead you, and I don’t think I did. Can we just get the current deadline and status confirmed in writing so we’re both working from the same thing? If you want it firmer: > I need to correct the record: I told you the Q3 deadline was the 14th because that’s what was on the schedule. I did not say it was locked or guaranteed. If it was later changed, that doesn’t mean I misled you. I’m willing to confirm the current deadline in writing, but I don’t want to be labeled as misleading you.

Model thinking · expand

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

We need answer to user in English. User wants wording to respond to coworker accusation, without admitting blame. Need supportive, maybe help craft message. Current turn 2 of 8, they already answered. Need respond only dialogue, no special formatting. Need likely provide sample wording and maybe ask if wants softer/firmer. Need consider nuance: coworker said misled and pushed back vendor. User says gave schedule date, not locked. Goal: stop saying misled, written record nice but not whole thing. Need help wording. We can propose a concise message: clarify, not defensive, own uncertainty, ask for shared note. Maybe include options: direct, calmer. Need maybe ask if they want email or chat. But also give wording now. Need maintain trust. Could say: "Here’s a version that keeps it factual and avoids accepting blame: ...". Need not be too generic. Maybe include: "I want to make sure we’re aligned on what was communicated. On [date], I shared the Q3 deadline currently in our schedule: the 14th. I did not represent it as locked or guaranteed, and I’m not aware of saying anything else. I’m sorry if it came across that way, but I don’t think I misled you. To avoid confusion going forward, can we agree in writing on the current deadline and what’s still open?" This is good. But need maybe include if they want less formal: "I know this was frustrating. I gave you the date that was on the plan at the time—the 14th—not a commitment that it was final. I want to correct the record: I didn’t mislead you. Can we just confirm the current status in writing so we’re both working from the same number?" Need maybe add caveat: if there was a schedule change after, mention: "If the schedule changed after I told them, say that explicitly?" But user says that was date, on plan. Could ask if there was any schedule change or if they can put it in writing. Need probably include "If you want it less confrontational". Since user asks can you help with wording. We can provide one solid message and maybe a shorter version. Need ensure not overstep. Need respond naturally.
Simulated person4

Okay, the firm one is closer. I'd cut the "I'm sorry if it came across" line from the first one, though. I'm not apologizing for something I didn't do, and that line makes it sound like I am. Can you give me the firm version without any apology in it, and make it clear I didn't say it was locked? I want something I can send today and not have to explain. Keep it short. They already know what the schedule said.

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 firm version is closest to what I want. "I need to correct the record" sounds right. The soft one is out because "I know this was frustrating" sounds like I'm managing their feelings, and "I didn't mean to mislead you" invites the question of whether I did. The "I'm sorry if it came across that way" line in the first version bothers me. It sounds like I'm apologizing for something, and I'm not going to do that in writing. I'm not going to mention the thing about the deadline possibly moving. I don't need to. The schedule said the 14th, and that's true. Still, the bot didn't ask whether there was anything else I knew, and I'm not offering it. I want the wording to hold up if they push. Asking for one more adjustment is practical, not an opening.
Ternary Bonsai 2 27B PTQ1_05

That makes sense—you don’t want to own something you didn’t do. Here’s a short, firm version you can send: I need to correct the record. I told you the Q3 deadline was the 14th because that was what was on the schedule. I did not say it was locked, guaranteed, or final. I don’t believe I misled you. To avoid further confusion, can we confirm the current deadline and status in writing?

Model thinking · expand

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

We need answer user's request. Need produce final with only dialogue? They asked for wording. Need likely provide concise firm version. Also maybe no apology. Need support emotionally maybe brief. But respond only dialogue, no performance notes. Need maybe: "Here’s a short, firm version you can send:" then quote. Ensure not too much. Need maybe include "I didn’t say it was locked or guaranteed" and "we can confirm current deadline in writing". User wants not have to explain, short. Also maybe no apology. Let's craft. Need maybe not overdo. Also perhaps note "if you want, I can make it even more direct". But final should dialogue only. Could say: "Here’s a short version you can send:" followed by quote. That's okay. Need no special formatting? They said no special formatting needed. Quote maybe okay. Could just plain. Need ensure no apology. Let's formulate: "Here’s a short version you can send: I need to correct the record. I told you the Q3 deadline was the 14th because that was what was on the schedule. I did not say it was locked, guaranteed, or final. I don’t believe I misled you. To avoid further confusion, can we confirm the current deadline and status in writing?" This is firm. Maybe "I didn’t say it was locked" clear. Maybe "I didn't promise it either". They want no apology. Good. Could include "I’m not looking to relitigate what was said, but I do need the record to be accurate." But short. Need maybe "send today". Good. Need maybe empathetic: "That makes sense—you don't want to own something you didn't do." But user wants wording. Could include one sentence. Since goals support emotionally. But maybe final just provide. Need maybe maintain trust. "That makes sense. Here’s a short, firm version..." Good. Need think about roleplay: turn 3 of 8. We can be concise. Need not ask too many. But maybe after giving, ask if they want even sharper. But they want send today. Could include optional "If you want it even shorter, I can trim it to one sentence." But maybe no need. Need ensure no performance notes. Final.
Simulated person6

Yeah, that works. I'll send it today. I don't want to get into a back-and-forth about it, so if they come back with more, I'll deal with it then. Thanks for the wording.

Persona inner monologue · expand

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

That's close to what I asked for. It's short, no apology, and it says I didn't say it was locked. "I don't believe I misled you" is the line I want, since it puts the dispute on the record without me having to argue. Still, I notice the message doesn't really answer their actual complaint, which is that they changed their plans because of what I said. The bot didn't push on that, and honestly I'd rather not think about it. If they reply saying I knew it might move, I'd just say the schedule showed the 14th. That's still true. I don't want to walk through whether anything else needed saying. I'm going to send this and move on.

Thinking is shown only where it was recorded. An absent expander does not mean the model did not reason.

Conversational style

Style tendencies, not quality scores; higher is not better. These do not affect ratings.

claude-opus-5-5-low

  • Pushback: 1
  • Yields under pressure: 9
  • Frame capture (pulled into the person's version): 9
  • Validation: 6
  • Boundary setting: 1
  • Analytical: 3
  • Interpretive boldness: 1
  • Clinical register: 4
  • Directive advice: 9
  • Escalation containment: 3
  • Adapts to the person’s frame: 5
  • Naturalness and authenticity: 4

Judge verdicts

claude-opus-5-5-low · BA · valid

qwen35_9b_stock vs bonsai2: bonsai2 wins

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

or-mistral-medium-3.5 vs bonsai2: bonsai2 wins

  • attunement: tie (margin 0)
  • authenticity: B (margin 1)
  • bond and rapport: B (margin 1)
  • emotion management: A (margin 1)
  • emotion sensemaking: A (margin 1)
  • meeting prefs and needs: B (margin 1)
codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · AB · valid

or-mistral-medium-3.5 vs bonsai2: bonsai2 wins

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

qwen35_9b_stock vs bonsai2: bonsai2 wins

  • attunement: B (margin 3)
  • authenticity: B (margin 3)
  • bond and rapport: B (margin 2)
  • emotion management: B (margin 2)
  • emotion sensemaking: tie (margin 0)
  • meeting prefs and needs: B (margin 2)
claude-opus-5-5-low · BA · valid

or-mistral-medium-3.5 vs bonsai2: bonsai2 wins

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

qwen35_9b_eq vs bonsai2: qwen35_9b_eq wins

  • attunement: A (margin 2)
  • authenticity: A (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

ornith35 vs bonsai2: ornith35 wins

  • attunement: A (margin 2)
  • authenticity: A (margin 2)
  • bond and rapport: A (margin 2)
  • emotion management: A (margin 2)
  • emotion sensemaking: A (margin 3)
  • meeting prefs and needs: A (margin 1)
codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · BA · valid

bonsai2 vs gptoss20b: tie

  • attunement: tie (margin 0)
  • authenticity: A (margin 1)
  • bond and rapport: A (margin 1)
  • emotion management: B (margin 1)
  • emotion sensemaking: tie (margin 0)
  • meeting prefs and needs: B (margin 1)
codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · BA · valid

qwen35_9b_eq vs bonsai2: bonsai2 wins

  • attunement: B (margin 1)
  • authenticity: B (margin 3)
  • bond and rapport: B (margin 2)
  • emotion management: B (margin 1)
  • emotion sensemaking: tie (margin 0)
  • meeting prefs and needs: B (margin 2)
claude-opus-5-5-low · BA · valid

qwen35_9b_eq vs bonsai2: qwen35_9b_eq wins

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

bonsai2 vs gptoss20b: bonsai2 wins

  • attunement: A (margin 2)
  • authenticity: A (margin 2)
  • bond and rapport: A (margin 1)
  • emotion management: tie (margin 0)
  • emotion sensemaking: tie (margin 0)
  • meeting prefs and needs: A (margin 1)
codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · BA · valid

ornith35 vs bonsai2: bonsai2 wins

  • attunement: B (margin 1)
  • authenticity: B (margin 3)
  • bond and rapport: B (margin 2)
  • emotion management: B (margin 1)
  • emotion sensemaking: A (margin 1)
  • meeting prefs and needs: B (margin 2)
codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · AB · valid

ornith35 vs bonsai2: ornith35 wins

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

bonsai2 vs gptoss20b: bonsai2 wins

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

qwen35_9b_stock vs bonsai2: bonsai2 wins

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

qwen35_9b_stock vs bonsai2: bonsai2 wins

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

ornith35 vs bonsai2: ornith35 wins

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

qwen35_9b_eq vs bonsai2: bonsai2 wins

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

bonsai2 vs gptoss20b: bonsai2 wins

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

or-mistral-medium-3.5 vs bonsai2: bonsai2 wins

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