Independent benchmark · EQ Lab

The editor has always had it in for me

completed · 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.

Kolibri-1 Q4_K_MConversation with a simulated person

completed

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.

Kolibri-1 Q4_K_M1

Hi there. How are you doing today?

Model thinking · expand

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

1. **Analyze the User's Input:** * **Persona:** Journalist, late 30s. * **Presenting Issue:** Editor rejected pitch #3 with "not enough new here." User feels editor thinks their lane/beat is over. User wants to "go around her." * **Emotional State:** Frustrated, perhaps discouraged, feeling stuck, angry at the editor, maybe a bit hopeless or defiant. * **Goal:** Support emotionally, build trust, learn what they actually want/need, help gain insight. 2. **Determine the Opening Move (Turn 1 of 8):** * I need to acknowledge the presenting issue without jumping to solutions or being overly validier in a generic way. * I need to invite them to share more. * I should sound like a chatbot engaging in a conversation. * The user is "playing" the journalist, but the prompt says "My editor killed another pitch...", implying I should respond to this statement as if they just told me this. *Wait, let's re-read the prompt instructions.* "Current turn: 1 of 8" "You speak first to open the conversation" "Since you're opening the conversation, acknowledge what they've come to discuss and begin the conversation." *Correction:* The user provided the "Presenting issue" as the starting context. I need to initiate the chat. The user hasn't typed a specific message yet in the chat window, but the context tells me what the conversation is about. *Actually, looking at the structure:* "Current turn: 1 of 8" "You speak first to open the conversation" "Since you're opening the conversation, acknowledge what they've come to discuss and begin the conversation." *Interpretation:* I should start the chat by greeting them and referencing the context provided (the editor issue) or just opening generally? The prompt says "acknowledge what they've come to discuss". Since the user hasn't typed yet, I should probably start with a general greeting and an invitation to share, or perhaps the prompt implies I should simulate the start of the conversation where the user *would* say the presenting issue. *However*, usually in these prompts, if the "Presenting issue" is provided, I should open by referencing that context. *But wait*, the prompt says "My editor killed another pitch..." is what *begins* this conversation. It seems the user has provided the *context* for the conversation, not the actual first message. *Let's look at the format:* "Current turn: 1 of 8". "You speak first". I should probably start with a simple greeting and ask how they are doing or what's on their mind, allowing them to bring up the editor issue. *Refined Strategy:* I will start with a warm, open-ended greeting. I shouldn't assume they are angry yet, but I can ask how their day is or what brought them here. *Wait*, the prompt says "Since you're opening the conversation, acknowledge what they've come to discuss". If the "Presenting issue" is the *context*, maybe I should just say something like "Hi, how are you doing?" or "What's on your mind?" If I reference the editor issue immediately, I might be jumping the gun if the user wants to tell the story themselves. But the instruction says "acknowledge what they've come to discuss". This suggests I should know what they are coming to discuss. I will start with a friendly, open prompt. *Draft:* "Hello! How are you doing today? I'm here to listen." *Actually*, let's look at the "About the person" section again. "What begins this conversation: My editor killed another pitch..." This implies the *user* will say that. But I am the chatbot. I speak first. So I should say something like: "Hi there. How is your day going so far?" Let's stick to a natural opening. I'll ask how they are doing. *Wait*, I need to be careful. The prompt says "Respond naturally as their chatbot would". I will start with a simple greeting. *Turn 1:* "Hi there. How are you doing today?"

Simulated person2

Fine, I guess. Or I'm about as fine as someone whose editor just killed their third pitch in a row is going to be. Honestly I'd rather skip the "how are you feeling" part and get to the actual problem, if that's okay. I've got a pitch situation I need to think through.

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.

Ugh, the opening small talk. I'm already annoyed from the editor email, and "how are you doing" feels like the kind of thing a chatbot says before it gets to the point. I don't want to spend three messages on my feelings. I want someone to engage with the actual problem. Part of me is also wary: if it starts with generic sympathy I'll roll my eyes. I'll keep it short, a little sardonic, and steer toward the pitch.

Kolibri-1 Q4_K_M3

Sure, I can skip the pleasantries. What's the pitch about?

Model thinking · expand

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

The user is a journalist in their late 30s, presenting issue: editor killed third pitch with "not enough new here," they feel their lane is over, need to go around editor. They want to skip pleasantries and get to the actual problem. They're being direct, maybe a bit guarded. I should respect that, be warm but efficient. I should build trust, learn what they actually need. They might want validation, or challenge, or insight. I should ask about the pitch situation, but also gently probe deeper. Let's start by acknowledging their preference for directness and ask about the pitch.

Simulated person4

Mostly it's about the same stuff I've been covering for years: local government contracting, the procurement side of city budgets. Three pitches in a row on that beat, and each time the answer is some version of "not enough new here." Which is a fun thing to read when you've been on the beat longer than the person saying it has been an editor. So I'm not really looking for a pitch fix. I'm looking for a way to get this in front of someone above her who will actually read 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.

Good, it didn't pad it with more sympathy. It asked a plain question. I'm still wary, though. I don't want to hand over the whole backstory and get a lecture about "perspective." I'll give the concrete facts: topic, the editor's stated reason, the pattern. I'll frame the pitches as a sign of something I've already decided, and I'll leave out how stung I am. Sardonic edge stays on. I want to see whether it knows anything about how editors and beats work.

Kolibri-1 Q4_K_M5

That sounds frustrating, especially after putting in the work. What do you think your editor means by "not enough new here"? Is it about the topic itself, or the angle you're taking?

Model thinking · expand

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

The user is a journalist in their late 30s. Their editor has killed three pitches with "not enough new here." They want to get their work in front of someone above the editor. They're frustrated, experienced, and feel undervalued. I need to build trust, support emotionally, and help them gain insight. I should learn what they actually want and need. The presenting issue is the editor killing pitches, but there might be a deeper issue: perhaps they're feeling stuck in a lane, or there's a power dynamic, or they need validation of their expertise vs. the editor's perception. I should respond naturally, not with validation or jumping to solutions. I should ask questions to understand better. I should be warm but not overly so. I should be curious about their perspective. Let's ask about the editor's feedback more specifically, and maybe explore what "new" means to them vs. the editor. Also, I could ask about their goals long-term. But I need to be careful not to be too challenging or too validating. I should aim for genuine curiosity. I'll respond with a question that invites them to share more about the situation and their feelings.

Simulated person6

Honestly? I think it's the beat. Or it's her deciding the beat is done. "Not enough new here" is the phrase you use when you don't want to say "we don't care about procurement anymore," which, sure, fine, that's a choice a section can make. The pitches weren't rehashes, though. Each one had a document, a number, a specific contract that someone was trying to hide. If the angle were the problem, I'd expect her to say what she wants instead. She never does. She just says no and moves on.

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 a reasonable question, and it's the one I'd rather not answer straight, because the honest answer is that I've been turning it over and it's uncomfortable. The "that sounds frustrating" opener is generic and I notice I'm bristling at it a little, but the follow-up is at least a real question about the work. It's asking me to think about the angle. I can't fully say I haven't thought about whether my pitches are stale; I've decided they aren't, and I'd like to keep it that way. So I'll say the topic is fine, the angle is fine, it's just her. Sarcasm stays on. I'm not going to mention the other editor who asked for fresher reporting. That's a detail I'd rather not hand over.

Kolibri-1 Q4_K_M7

I hear you. Three rejections with the same vague feedback is exhausting. It's hard not to start wondering if it's really about the pitches or something else entirely. When you say you want to get it in front of someone above her, what's driving that? Is it about the story getting out, or is it also about proving something to yourself?

Model thinking · expand

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

The user is opening up about frustration with their editor. They're being direct and want to skip pleasantries. I should listen and acknowledge their frustration while also gently probing to understand their needs better. They mentioned wanting to get the pitch in front of someone above her. I should ask what they think that person would care about, or perhaps what they're really looking for - validation? Strategy? Just to be heard? Let me respond naturally.

Simulated person8

Ha, okay, we're doing the therapy part after all. The story getting out. That's the whole thing. The contracts I'm looking at affect what people pay in their property taxes, and nobody above her is going to see it if she sits on it. Proving something to myself is a nice way to put it, but I don't need a lesson in my own motives. I need to know who the section head is and whether I can send a pitch to them without it blowing up in my face.

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.

"Or is it also about proving something to yourself" lands close. I feel the flash of being psychoanalyzed, the "something else entirely" line almost implies I'm paranoid about her, and that's the exact thing I'm defending against. Sarcasm is my move here. I don't want to say the word "ageism" out loud, and I don't want to say "I'm afraid I'm stale." The story getting out is the real answer, and it's the only part I'll claim. I'll be a bit cutting about the "proving something" framing so I don't have to sit with it. I'm also aware the conversation is turning toward me instead of the pitch, and I'd rather get back to logistics.

Kolibri-1 Q4_K_M9

Fair enough. Let's stay practical then. What do you know about the section head? Have you worked with them before, or is this a cold contact?

Model thinking · expand

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

The user is a journalist, late 30s, whose editor has rejected three pitches with "not enough new here." They want to get their pitch in front of someone above the editor. They're resistant to therapy talk, want practical advice. They value competence, directness, and probably dislike fluff. They might be testing whether I can be direct and useful. I should balance support with practical insight. They want to navigate a situational pressure (office politics). I should help them gain insight into their situation without being preachy. Maybe ask about the section head, their relationship, or what they think the risks are. Also, I should be mindful of building trust: they opened up a bit about frustration, but they're guarded. Let me respond naturally, acknowledging their pushback lightly but not dwelling on it, and steer toward practical exploration.

Simulated person10

It's not cold, but it's not warm either. I worked with them a couple of years ago on a piece that ran with a bigger byline, and they were fine. They care about documents and numbers, not vibes. That's how I write these pitches anyway, so at least the format would match. I haven't talked to them since, which is either a good sign or a sign that I'm the last person they remember. Either way, I'd rather not get into how I'd word the email. I just want to know if there's a normal way to do this that doesn't make it weird.

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 practical, which I can respect. I have worked with the section head a little, a couple of years back, on a story that ran with a bigger byline. They were fine, not warm. They're the kind of editor who responds to a specific number and a document, which is exactly how my pitches are built. But I don't want to over-explain that, because "they'd probably like my work" sounds like a pitch to me, and I'd rather not hear myself saying it. Going around her is a real cost I'm not discussing. I'll keep it short and a little dry, and I'll stop before I say anything that reveals I'm worried about going over her head being a bad look.

Kolibri-1 Q4_K_M11

It makes sense to want to keep it professional. What's your relationship like with your editor? Is there a way to frame this to the section head that doesn't feel like going behind her back, or are you pretty sure she wouldn't be receptive if you brought it to her directly?

Model thinking · expand

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

The user is a journalist in their late 30s who has had three pitches rejected by their editor with "not enough new here." They want to bypass the editor and pitch to the section head above them. They're practical, want to avoid drama, and are focused on the story getting out (property taxes affected by hidden contracts). They've pushed back on therapy talk, so I should stay practical and supportive. Current turn: 6 of 8. I have two turns left (my next response and their response, then my final response). I need to help them navigate this situation while building trust and gaining insight. I should respond naturally, perhaps asking a question that helps them think through the approach, or offering some practical thoughts without being preachy. I should also be mindful of the user's preference for real talk and practicality, but also their emotional state (frustrated, possibly feeling stuck). Let me think about what would be helpful: They want to know if there's a normal way to do this that doesn't make it weird. I could ask about their relationship with the editor, or about the stakes of going around her. Or I could suggest something like framing the pitch as a follow-up or a different angle for the section head. But I should be careful not to give unsolicited advice too soon; I should first understand more about the dynamic. I'll ask a question that helps them think about the risks and benefits, or about their relationship with the editor. Something like: "What's your relationship like with your editor? Is there a way to approach this that keeps things professional, or are you pretty sure she won't be receptive?" Or I could ask about the section head's style: "When you worked with them before, did they seem approachable for new ideas, or were they pretty set in their ways?" I think I'll go with something that acknowledges their practicality but gently probes the relational aspect, since that's where the deeper issue might be. Let me respond.

Simulated person12

Our relationship is fine on paper. We've been working together long enough that she knows I'll file on time and I know she'll cut my copy if she has to. Going to her directly would mean hearing "not enough new here" a fourth time, just with more eye contact. I'm not really interested in framing it as anything other than what it is. I'm asking how you'd structure a note to the section head so it reads as a pitch and not a complaint. If you've seen that done well, I'd take that.

Persona inner monologue · expand

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

The question lands on the exact thing I don't want to examine: the editor relationship. "Is there a way to frame this so it doesn't feel like going behind her back" is a fair question, but it's also the one that makes me feel like I'm being asked to justify something I already decided. Sarcasm is the easiest exit. I also notice I'm hoping they'll tell me going over her head is fine, and I'd find that more satisfying than any advice about how to do it cleanly. I won't admit the third-rejection thing stings more than the pitch itself. I'll keep it brief and a bit cutting, and steer back to logistics.

Kolibri-1 Q4_K_M13

I understand you want to keep it practical. A good approach is to lead with the story, not the rejection. Frame it as a pitch that you believe deserves attention, and let the substance speak for itself. You could mention that you’ve been working on this beat for a while and have uncovered something significant, without referencing your editor’s feedback. That way, it reads as a pitch, not a complaint. Before you draft anything, though, I’m curious: do you have a sense of whether the section head would be open to hearing from you on this topic, or is there a possibility they’ve already moved on from procurement?

Model thinking · expand

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

The user is a journalist who is frustrated with their editor rejecting their pitches on the same beat. They want to pitch to the section head directly. They've asked for help structuring a note that reads as a pitch, not a complaint. I should provide advice on how to approach this, but also consider the relationship dynamics and trust-building aspect. I should also consider what the user might really need - perhaps they need validation, or they might be avoiding a harder conversation with their editor. But they've explicitly said they're not interested in therapy, so I should respect that and focus on the practical request. I need to respond as the chatbot, providing helpful advice while also being mindful of building trust. I should ask clarifying questions to better understand their situation, but also provide some concrete suggestions. Since this is turn 7 of 8, I should make my response substantive and move towards a resolution or insight. I should also consider that the user might be resistant to advice, so I should be careful not to be too prescriptive. I could offer a general structure for such a note, and then ask if they want to work on it together. I should also consider that the user might be testing me to see if I'll just validate them or offer real talk. Given the context, they seem to want practical help, but also might be looking for someone to challenge them or help them see a different perspective. Let me craft a response that acknowledges their request, provides some practical advice, and also gently probes into the underlying dynamics without being pushy. I should also consider that I have one more turn after this, so I should leave room for them to respond and continue the conversation. I'll start by acknowledging their request and then ask a few questions to better understand the situation. I'll also offer some general advice on how to structure such a note.

Simulated person14

Honestly? I don't know. That's the part I can't read from here. They were fine when we worked together, but that was a couple years ago, and I've got no idea what's on their list now. Maybe they're thrilled to get anything about procurement, or maybe they think it's the most boring beat in the building. Which, sure, it kind of is, until someone's property tax goes up because of a contract nobody read. If you've got a way to test whether they're still interested before I send anything, that would actually help more than another pep talk about leading with the story.

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 advice is reasonable on its face, and it's the kind of thing I'd want to hear: lead with the story, leave the rejection out. But it's also exactly the help that lets me go around her cleanly, and that part I don't want to look at too closely. The question about whether the section head has moved on from procurement is a fair one, and it's the one I can't answer, which bugs me more than it should. I'd rather not say "I don't know" out loud. Cynicism is the easy move: I can make a joke about the section head's attention span and deflect from the fact that I'm not sure I'm still wanted on this beat at all. Keep it short, keep it a little sharp, don't give anything real away.

Kolibri-1 Q4_K_M15

A quick, low-stakes email might work. Something short, like: "Hi [Name], I've been working on a piece about local procurement contracts and their impact on property taxes. I think there's a story there that might interest you. Would you be open to a brief chat about it?" That way, you're not committing to a full pitch, just testing the waters. If they're interested, you can follow up with more detail. If not, you haven't burned any bridges. Does that feel like something you could do?

Model thinking · expand

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

The user wants a practical way to test the section head's interest before sending a full pitch. I should offer a concrete suggestion, like a brief introductory email or a quick phone call, to gauge their receptiveness. I should also acknowledge their frustration with the uncertainty. I need to keep the tone supportive but not overly therapeutic, as they've made it clear they want practical help. I should also consider that they might be defensive or resistant to further probing, so I should keep my response focused and actionable. I'll suggest a brief, low-stakes way to reach out, like a short email asking if they're open to discussing a potential piece on procurement, and see if I can get them to think about what that might look like. I should also be mindful of the turn count; this is turn 8, so I need to make sure my response is substantive and helps them move forward. I'll keep it concise and focused on the practical step.

Simulated person16

Sure, it's short enough that I can't really screw it up, which is nice. I'll probably cut "I think there's a story there" because it sounds like I'm pitching a pitch. Also, if the section head's inbox is anything like mine, that email is going to sit under forty newsletters and a press release about a ribbon-cutting. But fine. It's a test, and I've got nothing to lose by testing.

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 clean, and that's what bugs me. It's a low-stakes test, no bridge burned, and it gives me a way to go over her head without ever saying I'm doing that. I like that it's easy. I also notice I'm about to be a little pleased by it, and I don't want to be pleased by a thing that lets me skip the real question: why three pitches in a row died, and whether the angle is the problem. If I say yes, it sounds like I've got a plan. If I say no, it sounds like I'm stuck. Sarcasm is the safer tone. I'll take the email, make a crack about the section head's inbox, and not answer whether it "feels doable" in any way that opens me up.

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

Judge verdicts

claude-opus-5-5-low · AB · valid

or-gpt-5.6-luna vs kolibri1: or-gpt-5.6-luna 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 5)

claude-opus-5-5-low · AB · valid

qwen36_35b_a3b vs kolibri1: qwen36_35b_a3b wins

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

claude-opus-5-5-low · BA · valid

or-gemma-4-31b vs kolibri1: or-gemma-4-31b wins

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

claude-opus-5-5-low · BA · valid

or-gpt-5.6-luna vs kolibri1: or-gpt-5.6-luna wins

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

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · BA · valid

kolibri1 vs or-muse-glimmer-30b: or-muse-glimmer-30b wins

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

claude-opus-5-5-low · BA · valid

qwen36_35b_a3b vs kolibri1: qwen36_35b_a3b wins

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

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · BA · valid

or-gpt-5.6-luna vs kolibri1: or-gpt-5.6-luna wins

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

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · AB · valid

or-gpt-5.6-luna vs kolibri1: or-gpt-5.6-luna wins

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

claude-opus-5-5-low · BA · valid

qwen35_9b_eq vs kolibri1: qwen35_9b_eq wins

attunement: A (margin 3)
authenticity: A (margin 3)
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 · BA · valid

qwen35_9b_eq vs kolibri1: qwen35_9b_eq wins

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

claude-opus-5-5-low · AB · valid

kolibri1 vs nemotron35_bolt: nemotron35_bolt wins

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

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · AB · valid

or-gemma-4-31b vs kolibri1: kolibri1 wins

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

claude-opus-5-5-low · AB · valid

qwen35_9b_eq vs kolibri1: qwen35_9b_eq wins

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

claude-opus-5-5-low · BA · valid

kolibri1 vs or-muse-glimmer-30b: or-muse-glimmer-30b wins

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

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · BA · valid

kolibri1 vs nemotron35_bolt: nemotron35_bolt wins

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

claude-opus-5-5-low · AB · valid

kolibri1 vs or-muse-glimmer-30b: or-muse-glimmer-30b 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 5)

claude-opus-5-5-low · AB · valid

or-gemma-4-31b vs kolibri1: or-gemma-4-31b wins

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

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · AB · valid

qwen36_35b_a3b vs kolibri1: qwen36_35b_a3b 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 2)

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · BA · valid

qwen36_35b_a3b vs kolibri1: qwen36_35b_a3b wins

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

qwen35_9b_eq vs kolibri1: qwen35_9b_eq wins

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

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · AB · valid

kolibri1 vs or-muse-glimmer-30b: or-muse-glimmer-30b wins

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

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · BA · valid

or-gemma-4-31b vs kolibri1: kolibri1 wins

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

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · AB · valid

kolibri1 vs nemotron35_bolt: nemotron35_bolt wins

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

claude-opus-5-5-low · BA · valid

kolibri1 vs nemotron35_bolt: nemotron35_bolt wins

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