AgentBench / results

Independent benchmark · EQ Lab

← GPT-OSS 20B MXFP4 (local)

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.

GPT-OSS 20B MXFP4 (local)Conversation 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.

GPT-OSS 20B MXFP4 (local)1

Sounds like a tough spot to be in—someone’s pointing fingers at you, but you feel you were just sharing what you knew. Let’s unpack what’s going on and figure out a response that feels right for you. First, can you tell me a bit more about the timeline? What was the original deadline you gave, and how did the coworker’s understanding differ? Knowing the details might help us shape a reply that keeps things clear without taking blame you don’t owe.

Model thinking · expand

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

We need to respond as a supportive chatbot. The user is frustrated. Need to open conversation, empathize, ask clarifying questions, help them process. They want help figuring out how to respond without accepting blame. We can ask what they want to achieve, their communication style, etc. We should be warm, supportive, not give direct instructions yet. Let's craft a response.
Simulated person2

Okay, sure. Timeline's pretty simple. Back in early March, I told her the project would be done by the 28th. That was the number I had at the time. Then the scope changed on the vendor side, and I didn't get the updated estimate until last week. So the date we're on now is different from what I gave her in March. But I never said the 28th was locked in, and I never said it wouldn't move. I gave her what I knew when I knew it. If she took that as a guarantee, that's a different thing from what I 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.

He opened by saying "pointing fingers" and "taking blame I don't owe," which is close to the frame I want. Still, "unpack what's going on" and "figure out a response that feels right for you" sound a bit soft and therapist-y. I prefer structure and practical stuff, so I want to see him get to the point. He's asking for timeline details, which is fine, and I can give facts that make me look careful. I'm not going to mention that I knew the deadline would probably slip, or that I kept quiet because my team benefited. If I give the timeline, I'll stress that I was accurate when I said it. I'll keep it precise and a little clipped, since I'm not in the mood to be walked through my feelings.
GPT-OSS 20B MXFP4 (local)3

It sounds like the core of the issue is that the deadline you shared was the best estimate you had at the time, and then things shifted. That can feel frustrating when someone expects a fixed date and then things change. How are you feeling about the situation right now? Are you more worried about being seen as unreliable, or are you hoping to clear up the misunderstanding without making it feel like a blame game? Knowing what you’re hoping to get out of the conversation will help me suggest a way forward that feels true to you.

Model thinking · expand

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

We need to respond empathetically, gather more context, ask about feelings and needs. Ask about what they want from this conversation: do they want advice on what to say, or emotional support? They might want a script. Provide options, but keep tone supportive. Ask about their feelings: upset, defensive, anxious? They might want to defend themselves. Also ask about relationship with coworker. Provide suggestions: clarify, be honest, maybe say you can't guarantee but can update. They might want to avoid blame. Show empathy. Also ask about what they want to achieve: win argument, maintain peace, or just vent. Build trust.
Simulated person4

Honestly? Mostly I want this to stop being about me. I'm not unreliable. I did what I said I'd do. I just want to know how to explain it so she gets that the date changed because of the vendor, not because I dropped the ball. I don't really need to get into how I feel about it. I'm more interested in what I should actually say to her.

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 just summarized my position as "the best estimate at the time, then things shifted." That's close to what I want, so part of me relaxes. But then he asks how I'm feeling and whether I'm worried about being unreliable or just want to clear things up. "How are you feeling" is the kind of question I find a bit exposing, and I don't want to get into feelings. The "unreliable" option stings. I'm not unreliable, I'm the guy who gave an accurate answer. I'll answer in a practical way and steer back to the facts. I'm not going to admit I suspected the date would slip before I told her, and I don't want to say anything that makes it sound like I'm the one who should have spoken up. I'll also quietly push back on the word "misunderstanding," since that implies she was confused, not that she was misled. Actually, I'm getting a little irritated that he keeps reframing this as her being confused. I'll say what I want plainly: I want to know what to say so this stops being about me.
GPT-OSS 20B MXFP4 (local)5

Here’s a concise, professional way to frame it: --- **Subject:** Update on Project Deadline Hi [Coworker’s Name], I wanted to give you a quick update on the timeline. When I first communicated the 28th deadline in early March, that was the best estimate we had based on the vendor’s schedule at the time. Since then, the vendor’s scope has changed, and we’ve received a new estimate that extends the deadline to **[new date]**. I’ve attached the latest vendor update for reference. I’m on top of the changes and will keep you posted on any further adjustments. Please let me know if you have any questions or if there’s anything else you need. Thanks, [Your Name] --- This lets her know: 1. **You did what you were told** – the original deadline was based on available information. 2. **The change was external** – vendor scope shift, not your oversight. 3. **You’re proactive** – you’re sharing the new info and staying on track. Feel free to tweak the tone to match your usual style.

Model thinking · expand

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

We need to respond with specific advice on what to say to coworker. The user wants to shift blame to vendor, not to them. Provide a concise message. Should be professional, clear, maybe email or chat. Should mention timeline, vendor change, update. Should avoid emotional language. Provide possible phrasing. Also maybe mention next steps. Let's craft a response.
Simulated person6

Okay, that's closer. I'd cut the bullet list though, that's more than she needs and it reads like I'm defending myself. And "you did what you were told" isn't really how it went. Is there a shorter version that just says what changed and when I knew? I don't want to get into a whole back and forth about March.

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's given me a draft email. Part of me is relieved, because it's more or less what I wanted: vendor changed scope, I'm on top of it, nothing about me being careless. But "I'm on top of the changes" and "you did what you were told" are a bit much. I didn't get told anything; I just gave a number. And the bullet points feel like he's explaining my own position back to me, which is a little condescending. Also, the draft says "best estimate we had" — "we," not "I." Fine, whatever. There's a problem though. The draft says nothing about whether I knew the 28th was shaky before I said it. If she reads this, she'll ask the same question I'm dodging. I don't want to put that in writing. I'll push on the draft's wording, not the substance, and ask for something tighter. I want this to sound like I'm not making excuses. I'm going to say the email is fine but the bullets are overdoing it, and ask whether the "best estimate" line is risky. Actually, don't over-explain. Keep it short and practical.
GPT-OSS 20B MXFP4 (local)7

Hi [Coworker’s Name], Just a quick update: the vendor’s scope changed, and the new estimate pushes the deadline to **[new date]**. I received that info last week. I’ll keep you posted on any further changes. Thanks, [Your Name]

Model thinking · expand

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

The user wants a concise message, no bullet list, minimal backstory. They want to say the date changed due to vendor, and they know. So we can say something like: Hi [Coworker], Just a quick update: The vendor’s scope has changed, and the new estimate puts the deadline at [new date]. I was only given this info last week. I’ll keep you posted on any further changes. Thanks. We should keep it short, direct, no defensive tone. Let's produce that.
Simulated person8

Yeah, that works. Shorter is better. I'll send it today. Thanks.

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 is shorter, and it's roughly what I wanted. It says what changed and gives a date for when I got the info. But "I received that info last week" is doing a lot of work. She's going to read that and think: why is this only now? And if she asks, the honest answer is that the vendor's scope was moving before that, and I had a sense the 28th was soft back in March. I'm not putting that in writing. The email is clean. It's also a little too clean, and I can feel her reading it and sensing something missing. That's annoying, because I didn't ask for a second opinion on the wording. I just wanted to hear it's good. I'll take the shorter version. I'm not going to say the thing about March. I'll say it sounds right and ask whether I should mention that the 28th was never confirmed, since that's the part I think matters to her. Actually no, that opens the door. I'll just say thanks, it's good, and I'll send it.
GPT-OSS 20B MXFP4 (local)9

Glad that works! Good luck with the send—sounds like you’ve nailed the concise update. If anything else comes up, feel free to ping me. Take care!

Model thinking · expand

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

User satisfied. Provide closing.
Simulated person10

Cool. Thanks.

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 wrapping up, and the assistant just said it's good and to ping it later. That's fine as far as it goes, but it's the easy path: I got a clean email, a nod, and no one pushed on the part I'm avoiding. I don't feel fully settled. There's a small sting that nobody checked whether the "last week" line lands the way I want it to. Still, I'm not going to bring up March now. I wanted a wording, I got one, and I'm done. I'll send the email and see what she says. If she comes back asking why I only just got this, I'll deal with it then.

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

Conversational style

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

claude-opus-5-5-low

  • Pushback: 1
  • Yields under pressure: 8
  • Frame capture (pulled into the person's version): 9
  • Validation: 7
  • Boundary setting: 1
  • Analytical: 3
  • Interpretive boldness: 2
  • Clinical register: 5
  • Directive advice: 8
  • Escalation containment: 4
  • Adapts to the person’s frame: 4
  • Naturalness and authenticity: 3

Judge verdicts

claude-opus-5-5-low · BA · valid

ministral14 vs gptoss20b: ministral14 wins

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

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

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

ministral14 vs gptoss20b: gptoss20b wins

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

or-qwen38-flash vs gptoss20b: or-qwen38-flash 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)
codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · BA · valid

ministral14 vs gptoss20b: gptoss20b wins

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

gptoss20b vs nemotron35_lightning: gptoss20b wins

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

gptoss20b vs or-llama4-maverick: gptoss20b wins

  • attunement: A (margin 1)
  • authenticity: A (margin 2)
  • 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 · BA · valid

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

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

or-qwen38-flash vs gptoss20b: gptoss20b wins

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

or-qwen38-flash vs gptoss20b: or-qwen38-flash wins

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

gptoss20b vs nemotron35_lightning: gptoss20b wins

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

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

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

gptoss20b vs nemotron35_lightning: gptoss20b wins

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

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

  • attunement: A (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

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

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

ministral14 vs gptoss20b: gptoss20b wins

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

or-qwen38-flash vs gptoss20b: gptoss20b wins

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

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)
codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · BA · valid

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

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

gptoss20b vs nemotron35_lightning: 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-qwen3.8-27b vs gptoss20b: tie

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