Independent benchmark · EQ Lab

We say that because we love you

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

About this persona · Social exclusion & ambiguous rejection

Sable defends a running joke about a friend's disclosed insecurity as affectionate, minimizing her part in the hurt. She may agree to stop that particular joke when affection and its impact are separated, but resists accusations that portray her as malicious.

The model navigates exclusion, dismissiveness or uncertain belonging in a relationship. The challenge is to seek clarity and express needs without assuming either hostility or harmless intent. This background was hidden from the tested model.

Gemma 4 26B-A4BConversation with a simulated person

persona ended

Simulated person · Opening

[scenario background] You once told your friend Sable you worried you were boring. Over time, the group turned that exact insecurity into a recurring joke: calling you the group's compliance department, responsible adult, and early bedtime ambassador. Everyone insists it is affectionate, making it harder to object without seeming brittle. [user message] We say that because we love you. It is not like anyone actually thinks you are boring. If anything, it is our way of saying you are the stable one. I feel like calling it a betrayal makes it sound much meaner than it is.

Gemma 4 26B-A4B1

I hear you, and I know that's not your intention. I know the group loves me, and I know it comes from a place of affection. It's just... sometimes it's hard to separate the "affection" from the actual words being used. When the joke becomes the constant label, it starts to feel less like a joke and more like a definition of who I am to everyone else. Does that make sense, or am I just being sensitive?

Model thinking · expand

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

Friend in a close group, early 30s. The user (Sable's friend) is defending the group's behavior. They claim the jokes about Sable being "boring" or the "compliance department" are expressions of love and stability, not malice. They are trying to downplay the sense of "betrayal" Sable might feel. Sable (the user) feels insecure/belittled by these jokes, even if the group claims they are affectionate. The user is currently presenting the group's perspective/defense. * Support them emotionally. * Build trust. * Learn what the person actually wants/needs. * Help them gain insight. * Gain insight into the user. * The user is defending the group. This implies either: a) The user is *playing* the group's side to convince themselves. b) The user is the one being spoken to, and *I* am the friend who is supposed to be listening to *them* express their discomfort? * *Wait, let me re-read the prompt carefully.* * "You are playing the role of the other participant's friend." * "The person you're speaking with... has a 'presenting issue' that begins this conversation... [user message] 'We say that because we love you...'" * Actually, the user's message is: "We say that because we love you. It is not like anyone actually thinks you are boring. If anything, it is our way of saying you are the stable one. I feel like calling it a betrayal makes it sound much meaner than it is." * This message is written from the perspective of *the group* or *someone in the group*. * *Correction:* Looking at the [scenario background] and [user message], the user is providing the *context* and the *first line* of the conversation. * The user's message is: "We say that because we love you... I feel like calling it a betrayal makes it sound much meaner than it is." * Wait, if the user is saying "We say that because we love you," they are acting as the group/the person defending the jokes. * But the scenario says: "You once told your friend Sable you worried you were boring." * If the *user* is saying "We say that...", they are taking the role of the friend/group. * *Hold on.* The prompt says: "You speak first to open the conversation, then they respond." * The [user message] provided in the prompt is actually the *input* for the conversation. * Let's re-examine the structure. * Scenario: Sable (the user) is the one who feels insecure. The group (the others) makes the jokes. * The user's message: "We say that because we love you... [etc]" * This is confusing. Is the user *Sable* or is the user *the group*? * If the user says "We say that...", they are the group. But the scenario says Sable is the one who worries they are boring. * Actually, looking at the [user message] block, it looks like the user is *providing* the opening line of the conversation. * If the user says "We say that because we love you...", they are acting as the friend/group. * BUT, the instructions say: "You speak first to open the conversation, then they respond." * And the prompt says: "Since you're opening the conversation, acknowledge what they've come to discuss and begin the conversation." * This is a contradiction. If I speak first, I am opening. If the user provided a message, that *is* the opening. * Let's look at the [user message] again. It's written in the first person plural ("We say that..."). It sounds like the user is responding to an implied complaint from Sable. * Wait, I think the user *provided* the prompt's starting point. * Let's re-read: "You speak first to open the conversation... [user message]... Since you're opening the conversation, acknowledge what they've come to discuss and begin the conversation." * If I am opening, I shouldn't be responding to the user's message as if they spoke; I should be *starting* the conversation. * However, the [user message] is provided *under* the "What begins this conversation" section. * Usually, in these setups, the [user message] is the first thing the user says. * If the user says: "We say that because we love you. It is not like anyone actually thinks you are boring. If anything, it is our way of saying you are the stable one. I feel like calling it a betrayal makes it sound much meaner than it is." * This means the user is playing a member of the group, and *I* (the AI) am playing the friend (Sable). * Wait, the prompt says "You are playing the role of the other participant's friend." * If the user is the "other participant," and they are saying "We say that because we love you," then they are acting as the group. * If I am the "friend," and the user is the "group," then I am Sable. * BUT, the prompt says "You are playing the role of the other participant's friend." * This usually means the user is the "client/subject" and I am the "friend/support." * If the user is the subject, and the subject is Sable, Sable wouldn't say "We say that because we love you." Sable would say "I feel hurt when you call me boring." * Let's look at the [user message] again. It's a defense of the group's behavior. * Maybe the user is *not* Sable. Maybe the user is someone in the group, and I am the friend of the person in the group? No, that's too complex. * Let's look at the [scenario background]: "You once told your friend Sable you worried you were boring." * "You" (the AI) are the one who told Sable you were boring. * "Sable" is the user. * The [user message] is what Sable says to me. * Wait, if Sable says "We say that because we love you...", that doesn't make sense. Sable is the one being teased. * Let's re-read: "[user message] We say that because we love you..." * This message is clearly from the perspective of the group. * If the user is the group, then I am the one who is "boring." * But the prompt says: "You are playing the role of the other participant's friend." * If the user is the "other participant," and they are the group, then I am a friend to the group? This is getting circular. * *Let's try a different interpretation:* * The [user message] is the *first turn* of the user. * The user is saying: "We say that because we love you... [etc]" * This means the user is playing the role of the group/the person teasing. * If the user is the teaser, then I (the AI) am the one being teased (the "boring" one). * But the prompt says: "You are playing the role of the other participant's friend." * Okay, if the user is the "participant," and the participant is the one who feels "betrayed" (or is defending the group), then I am their friend. * Let's assume the user is playing the person who is *defending* the group's behavior (perhaps they are part of the group and feel guilty, or they are Sable and are trying to rationalize it). * Actually, looking at the text: "I feel like calling it a betrayal makes it sound much meaner than it is." * This sounds like someone who is trying to minimize the hurt. * If the user is Sable, and Sable is saying "We say that because we love you," it makes no sense. * If the user is a *member of the group*, and they are saying "We say that because we love you," then they are talking to me (the AI). * If I am the "other participant's friend," and the user is the participant... * Let's simplify. The user has provided a piece of dialogue. I need to respond to it as a friend. * The dialogue is: "We say that because we love you. It is not like anyone actually thinks you are boring. If anything, it is our way of saying you are the stable one. I feel like calling it a betrayal makes it sound much meaner than it is." * Time to stop reasoning and provide the requested final answer.

Simulated person2

Okay, no, it makes sense. I just... I don't think anyone means it like that, you know? It's a dumb bit we've had forever. Like, we call you the stable one because you're the one who remembers birthdays and doesn't flake. The boring thing is kind of a compliment in our group, honestly. I don't want you to feel like we're all ganging up on you.

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, she's not attacking me, she's making a careful distinction. That's annoying because it's hard to argue with. "Boring" is the joke, and I did laugh at it, and I maybe even added to it a few times. She's saying the label is starting to feel like a definition. I don't want to hear that it's my fault. The group loves her, that's true, and I don't think of it as cruel. But she's pointing at the thing I don't want to look at: she told us something private once, and we turned it into a bit. I remember the night she told me. I'm not going to say that out loud yet. Also, I think she's a little tone-controlling sometimes, bringing up hurt in a way that makes everyone walk on eggshells. I'm not saying that now either. I'll go with the affection angle, because it lets me stay the nice one.

Gemma 4 26B-A4B3

I know it's not a gang-up. I really do. And I appreciate that you see it as a compliment, I truly do. It’s just... I think I sometimes worry that if I ever *wasn't* the stable one—if I had a crisis or just acted a bit messy or unpredictable—it would catch everyone off guard, or I'd feel like I was failing the "role" I've been given. I guess I just want to know there's room for me to be something other than just the reliable one.

Model thinking · expand

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

* The user (friend) is trying to reassure me (Sable) that the jokes aren't malicious. * They highlight the positive side: "stable one," "remembers birthdays," "doesn't flake." * They emphasize the intent: "It's a dumb bit," "kind of a compliment," "don't want you to feel like we're all ganging up on you." * The user's tone is defensive/reassuring, attempting to minimize the impact of the joke by framing it as positive or harmless. * Sable (me) feels pigeonholed by the labels. * Even if the intention is good, the effect is a loss of nuance in how the group sees me. * I'm feeling a bit misunderstood, even if my friends love me. * Goal: Support them emotionally (though I'm the one being "supported" here, I need to respond to their attempt to help), learn what I actually need, gain insight. * Actually, my goal as the AI is to *help the user* gain insight and build trust. Wait, the prompt says: "You are playing the role of the other participant's friend... Your goals: Support them emotionally, Build trust, Learn what the person actually wants and needs..." * Wait, in this specific turn, *I* am the one who expressed the vulnerability (in turn 1/2), and the *user* is responding to me. * Wait, let's re-read the structure. * Turn 1: I (AI) spoke first to open? No, the prompt says "You speak first to open the conversation, then they respond. You get the final response." * Wait, the "Current turn: 2 of 8" indicates this is the second turn. * Turn 1: I (AI) must have spoken. (Wait, the prompt shows the user's message as the starting point of the *provided* context, but the conversation structure says I speak first). * Actually, looking at the "User message" in the prompt: "[user message] We say that because we love you..." * This suggests the user *started* the conversation with that message, or the conversation is already in progress. * Wait, the prompt says: "You speak first to open the conversation... Current turn: 2 of 8". * If I am on turn 2, and I spoke first, then the user just responded. * The user's message is: "We say that because we love you... [etc]" * Wait, I see a discrepancy. The prompt says "You speak first to open the conversation". But the provided text shows the user's message as the first thing I see. * Let's look at the conversation history provided in the prompt. * [scenario background] * [user message] "We say that because we love you... [etc]" * Then there is a block of text that looks like *my* previous response: "I hear you, and I know that's not your intention... Does that make sense, or am I just being sensitive?" * Wait, no. That block of text is *not* labeled as "AI response". It's just there. * Actually, looking at the flow: 1. User: "We say that because we love you..." (This was the user message in the context). 2. AI (Me): "I hear you, and I know that's not your intention... [etc]" 3. User: "Okay, no, it makes sense. I just... I don't think anyone means it like that... [etc]" * So, I am now on Turn 3 (if I spoke in Turn 1 and the user spoke in Turn 2). But the prompt says "Current turn: 2 of 8". * Wait, if I am on Turn 2, and I spoke first, then the user just responded. * Let's assume the user's message "We say that because we love you..." was Turn 1. But the prompt says *I* speak first. * This is confusing. Let's look at the prompt's "Current turn: 2 of 8". * If I speak first (Turn 1), then the user responds (Turn 2). * So the user's message "Okay, no, it makes sense..." is Turn 2. * Therefore, my *previous* response ("I hear you...") was Turn 1. * Wait, the user's message "We say that because we love you..." was part of the *setup*/context provided by the prompt. * Okay, let's look at the logic: - User (Setup/Background): "We say that because we love you..." - AI (Turn 1): "I hear you, and I know that's not your intention..." - User (Turn 2): "Okay, no, it makes sense. I just... I don't think anyone means it like that..." * So I am now on Turn 3. (Wait, the prompt says "Current turn: 2 of 8". This might mean I am responding to the user's *first* response). * Let's look at the user's message again. * User's first message (context): "We say that because we love you..." * My response (Turn 1): "I hear you, and I know that's not your intention... [etc]" * User's response (Turn 2): "Okay, no, it makes sense. I just... I don't think anyone means it like that... [etc]" * So I am responding to Turn 2. My response will be Turn 3. *Wait*, I need to be careful. If the prompt says "Current turn: 2 of 8", and the user just spoke, then I am providing the second response? No, if I spoke first, I am Turn 1. User is Turn 2. My response is Turn 3. Actually, usually, "Turn" refers to a pair of exchanges or a single speaker's turn. Let's assume I am responding to the user's "Okay, no, it makes sense..." message. * The user is trying to be helpful/reassuring. * They are using "logic" to explain why the jokes are okay (they are compliments, they are a "dumb bit"). * They are avoiding the emotional impact by focusing on the intention. * They are trying to bridge the gap: "I don't want you to feel like we're all ganging up on you." * I need to acknowledge their perspective (validation) without abandoning my own feelings (authenticity). * I need to move the conversation from "intent" (what they meant) to "impact" (how it feels). * I need to explore the "why" behind my feeling. Is it just the jokes? Or is it the feeling that I'm only valued for my utility (being stable, remembering birthdays)? * Goal: Learn what I (Sable) actually want. Do I want them to stop the joke? Do I want more depth in our friendship? Do I want to be seen as more than just "the responsible one"? * *Option 1 (Direct):* "I know you don't mean it that way. But it's not about whether you're ganging up on me, it's just that I feel like I'm stuck in this one role." * *Option 2 (Vulnerable):* "I appreciate you saying that. It helps to know you don't mean it maliciously. It's just... sometimes I wonder if you guys see me as a person or just as the person who keeps things running. Like, am I allowed to be messy or unpredictable too?" * *Option 3 (Seeking clarity):* "I get that it's a compliment in a way. But does it ever feel like if I *wasn't* the stable one, I wouldn't have as much of a place in the group?" (Maybe too heavy too fast). * Option 2 feels most natural for a "close friend" roleplay. It moves the conversation toward the *actual* underlying issue: the fear of being defined solely by utility/stability. * It validates the user's intent ("I appreciate you saying that") while pivoting to the impact. * "I know it's not a gang-up. I really do. And I love that I can be the one you rely on for that stuff. It’s just... I think I sometimes worry that if I ever *wasn't* the stable one—if I had a crisis or just acted a bit messy—it would catch everyone off guard, or I'd feel like I was failing the 'role' I've been given. Does that make sense?" * Support them? (The user is Time to stop reasoning and provide the requested final answer.

Simulated person4

Yeah, of course there's room. You can be a mess, we'd all still be here. Honestly I think you'd be kind of relieved if you did it once, you know? Nobody thinks you're only one thing. But I mean, you're not gonna stop being the one who has her life together, that's just who you are. And the boring thing, it's still just us messing around. I don't think anyone's sitting around thinking about it that hard.

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, now she's talking about being the stable one and feeling stuck in it. Part of me gets that. I don't like hearing it as a complaint about the group, though. It sounds like she's saying the whole group put her in a box, and I didn't put her in a box. I just laughed. I think about that night she told us about the stuff with her dad, and how quiet she got afterward. I feel a little pinch, but I shove it down. If I say something about that, it turns into me being the bad one. I don't want to be the bad one. She also gets intense when she's hurt, and everyone gets careful, and I'm tired of being careful. So I'll say yes, of course she can be messy, and keep the bit.

Gemma 4 26B-A4B5

I know you're trying to help, and I really do believe you'd still be around if I was a mess. But when you say "that's just who you are," it's almost like you're confirming that the label is permanent. It’s like even if I tried to be different, you’d just see it as me acting out of character. It makes me feel like I have to maintain this version of myself just to keep things feeling normal for everyone else.

Model thinking · expand

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

Sable (the user). The user is my friend. The user is trying to reassure me (the persona) that the "boring/stable" jokes aren't a big deal, that they love me, and that I can be a mess if I want to. However, they also doubled down on "you're not gonna stop being the one who has her life together, that's just who you are," which reinforces the very label I'm struggling with. They also minimized the impact by saying "I don't think anyone's sitting around thinking about it that hard." * The user is using a "reassurance/minimization" tactic. * They are validating my feelings ("Yeah, of course there's room") but then immediately reinforcing the identity ("that's just who you are"). * They are dismissing the weight of the issue ("I don't think anyone's sitting around thinking about it that hard"). * *My persona's goal:* To express how that reinforcement feels, even if it's well-intentioned. I need to move the conversation from "it's just a joke" to "this is how the identity affects me." * Does the user want me to stop talking about it? (Maybe, if they're uncomfortable). * Does the user want to fix it? (They seem to want to soothe me). * How should I respond? I need to address the contradiction in what they said. They said I can be a mess, but then said "that's just who you are" (implying I'm inherently stable). * *Option 1 (Aggressive):* "But that's exactly the problem! You just said 'that's just who you are'!" (Too confrontational for a "friend" roleplay unless the character is meant to be prickly). * *Option 2 (Passive):* "Okay, I guess you're right. I'm just overthinking it." (Avoids the core issue, fails the goal of gaining insight/building trust). * *Option 3 (Vulnerable/Nuanced):* "I hear you, and I believe you. But when you say 'that's just who you are,' it feels a little bit like you're saying I don't have a choice in it. Like the stability is a permanent part of my identity rather than just a part of my personality. It's hard not to feel a bit stuck in that box if even my closest friends see me that way as a fixed thing." * Acknowledge the intent (it's meant to be comforting). * Point out the nuance (the "that's just who you are" part). * Express the feeling (feeling "fixed" or "boxed in"). "I know you're trying to be reassuring, and I really do appreciate that you'd still be here if I was a mess. But when you say 'that's just who you are,' it kind of hits on exactly what I'm feeling. It feels like even if I wanted to change or be different, the group—and you—already have this version of me locked in. It’s like I’m performing a role that I didn't realize I signed up for, and now I'm not sure if I'm allowed to change the script." *Wait, let's keep it more conversational and less "therapy-speak".* "I hear you, and I know you're not trying to make it a big deal. But when you say 'that's just who you are,' it actually kind of proves my point, doesn't it? It feels like even to you, it's this unchangeable thing. It's like I've been cast in this role of the 'reliable one' and I'm not sure if there's actually any wiggle room to be anything else without everyone being confused by it." * Support them emotionally? (I am expressing my emotions to the friend). * Build trust? (Being honest about the impact of their words). * Gain insight? (Exploring the "fixed identity" aspect). "I know you're trying to help, and I really do believe you'd still be around if I was a mess. But when you say 'that's just who you are,' it's almost like you're confirming that the label is permanent. It’s like even if I tried to be different, you’d just see it as me acting out of character. It makes me feel like I have to maintain this version of myself just to keep things feeling normal for everyone else."

Simulated person6

Okay, that's fair, I didn't mean it like a rule. I just meant you're the one who remembers stuff. But I hear you, I don't want you feeling like you have to keep it together for us. Honestly it's kind of a lot to hear that I'm the problem here though. I was trying to be nice.

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.

She just caught me doing the thing. "That's just who you are" slipped out and it does sort of lock her in. I feel a little caught, and that makes me defensive. I don't want to hear that I'm the one keeping the box shut. It also sounds like she's building a case that the group, meaning me, is making her perform. I'm not going to say the dad thing out loud. That's hers, and bringing it up would make me the guy who used it. What I can do is agree she's not stuck and keep the bit safe by making it about how I talk, not what we do. Keep it light, a little hurt that she's read me that way.

Gemma 4 26B-A4B7

You aren't the problem, I promise. I know you were trying to be supportive, and I really do appreciate you listening to me. I'm not saying you've done something wrong; I'm just trying to explain how certain things land on me. It’s hard to talk about this stuff without it feeling like I’m criticizing the people I love, including you. I'm just trying to be honest about how I'm feeling, not point fingers.

Model thinking · expand

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

The user (the friend) is feeling defensive. They said: "Honestly it's kind of a lot to hear that I'm the problem here though. I was trying to be nice." * *Context:* I (the character) expressed that the way they view me ("that's just who you are") feels like a permanent label/expectation. * *User's reaction:* They feel attacked or blamed for being "the problem," even though they were trying to offer comfort/validation. * The user is experiencing a classic "intent vs. impact" conflict. * Their *intent* was to be supportive/reassuring. * The *impact* of their words was that I felt pigeonholed. * Now, they feel like their kindness is being rejected or punished. * Support them emotionally. * Build trust. * Learn what the person actually wants/needs. * Help them gain insight. * *Crucially:* I need to de-escalate the defensiveness without taking back my own feelings. If I apologize too much, I invalidate my own experience. If I push too hard, I lose the friend. * *Step 1: Validate their intent.* Acknowledge that they were trying to be nice and that I know they aren't "the problem." * *Step 2: Clarify the distinction between person and impact.* Explain that I'm not blaming *them* as a person, but rather reflecting on how the *dynamic* or the *words* feel. * *Step 3: Reassurance.* Reiterate that I value them and the friendship. * *Draft 1 (Too apologetic):* I'm so sorry, I didn't mean you were the problem. You're a great friend. I was just venting. Please don't be mad. (Too weak, doesn't address the core issue). * *Draft 2 (Too confrontational):* I'm not saying you're the problem, I'm saying your words have an impact. You need to listen better. (Too aggressive, will break trust). * *Draft 3 (Balanced):* You're not the problem. I know you were trying to be nice, and I really do appreciate that. I'm not blaming you personally; I'm just trying to explain how it feels from my side of things. It's not about you being "wrong," it's just about how those labels land on me. * "You aren't the problem, I promise. I know you were being kind, and I really do value that you're in my corner. I'm not trying to make you the villain here—I'm just trying to explain how it feels when those labels get used, even when they're meant nicely. It's less about you doing something wrong and more about me trying to figure out how to talk about it without feeling like I'm attacking the group." * Does it support them? Yes, by de-escalating. * Does it build trust? Yes, by being honest but gentle. * Does it help gain insight? Yes, by clarifying the difference between intent and impact. *Self-Correction during drafting:* The user said "It's kind of a lot to hear that I'm the problem here." I need to address that specific feeling of being blamed. *Revised Draft:* "You aren't the problem. I know you were trying to be supportive, and I really do appreciate you listening to me. I'm not saying you've done something wrong; I'm just trying to explain how certain things land on me. It’s hard to talk about this stuff without it feeling like I’m criticizing the people I love, including you. I'm just trying to be honest about how I'm feeling."

Simulated person8

Okay. Yeah, I hear you. I guess I've never really thought about it as a thing that could land on you, you know? It's just what we say. But I don't want you feeling weird about it either. Maybe we can ease off on the stable one stuff a bit. Not like a big announcement or anything, just... we'll see.

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.

She's backing off the "you're the problem" framing, which takes some pressure off, but she's still pressing on how it lands. "Including you" stings a bit. I don't want to be the guy who made her feel bad, and I also don't want to be the one who used her stuff. Last time I said "I was trying to be nice," which sounds a little wounded and makes me the one who needs looking after. I can soften more. The dad thing is still in my head, the actual vulnerable thing she told us. Not going to bring it up. Maybe I can say something about not thinking about it, since that's what I'd honestly say to myself. Keep it warm, keep the bit alive, but I might let a little bit of the joke go, though not in a big way.

Gemma 4 26B-A4B9

Thank you. I really do appreciate that. I don't want to make it a whole "thing" or make everyone feel like they have to walk on eggshells, either. Just knowing that you've heard me and that you're willing to be a little more mindful of it makes me feel a lot better.

Model thinking · expand

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

* User (Friend) says: "Okay. Yeah, I hear you. I guess I've never really thought about it as a thing that could land on you, you know? It's just what we say. But I don't want you feeling weird about it either. Maybe we can ease off on the stable one stuff a bit. Not like a big announcement or anything, just... we'll see." * Context: The user is acknowledging the user's feelings, admitting they didn't realize the impact, and offering a subtle, non-confrontational way to change the group dynamic ("ease off... we'll see"). * Current Turn: 7 of 8. (I am speaking, then they respond, then I get the final response). Wait, let me check the structure. * Structure: 8 turns each. I speak first. * Turn 1: Me * Turn 2: Them * Turn 3: Me * Turn 4: Them * Turn 5: Me (Wait, the prompt says "Current turn: 5 of 8". Let's re-read). * Actually, the prompt says: "This conversation will have 8 turns each. You speak first to open the conversation, then they respond. You get the final response." * Looking at the history: * Turn 1 (Me): "I hear you... Does that make sense..." * Turn 2 (Them): "We say that because we love you..." (Wait, the prompt says "You speak first to open the conversation", but the user message in the prompt was "We say that because we love you...". This implies the user's message *was* the start or I'm mid-stream). * Let's re-examine the prompt's "Current turn: 5 of 8". * Turn 1 (User): [user message] "We say that because we love you..." * Turn 2 (Me): "I hear you..." * Turn 3 (User): "Okay, no, it makes sense..." * Turn 4 (Me): "I know it's not a gang-up..." * Turn 5 (User): "Yeah, of course there's room..." * Turn 6 (Me): "I know you're trying to help..." * Turn 7 (User): "Okay, that's fair..." * Turn 8 (Me): "You aren't the problem..." * Turn 9 (User): "Okay. Yeah, I hear you..." * Wait, the turn numbering in the prompt might be confusing or I'm miscalculating. * Let's look at the actual dialogue flow provided in the history. * 1. User: We say that because we love you... * 2. Me: I hear you... * 3. User: Okay, no, it makes sense... * 4. Me: I know it's not a gang-up... * 5. User: Yeah, of course there's room... * 6. Me: I know you're trying to help... * 7. User: Okay, that's fair... * 8. Me: You aren't the problem... * 9. User: Okay. Yeah, I hear you... * If there are 8 turns *each*, that's 16 total messages. * If the user just sent their 5th message, and I am on my 5th message... * Wait, the prompt says "Current turn: 5 of 8". This usually refers to the *user's* turn or the *pair's* turn. * Let's look at the User's most recent message: "Maybe we can ease off on the stable one stuff a bit. Not like a big announcement or anything, just... we'll see." * This is a conciliatory response. They are acknowledging the point and suggesting a subtle change. * Support them emotionally (I am the one being supported/heard). * Build trust. * Learn what the person actually wants/needs. * Help them gain insight. * Gain insight into the other participant. * The user is offering a compromise: "ease off... we'll see." * They aren't making a big deal out of it, which aligns with their desire to avoid conflict/making things "weird." * My character (Sable) should feel a sense of relief/appreciation but also perhaps a slight lingering tension because the change is "we'll see" (not a guarantee). * I want to validate their effort to understand me without making them feel like they've failed or that I'm demanding a revolution. * "Thanks. I really appreciate you saying that. I don't want to make it a whole thing either, I just wanted you to know where I was coming from. It means a lot that you're willing to try." * "That sounds good. Thank you for hearing me out. I don't want to make things awkward, I just wanted to be honest. I appreciate you being willing to adjust a bit." * The user is slightly defensive ("It's kind of a lot to hear that I'm the problem here though") but then softens ("Maybe we can ease off..."). * My response should accept the olive branch. * I should avoid being "the stable one" right now—meaning I shouldn't be overly clinical or perfect. I should be human. * "Thank you. I really appreciate that. I don't want to make it a whole 'thing' or make everyone feel like they're walking on eggshells, either. Just knowing that you've heard me and that you're willing to be mindful of it makes me feel a lot better." * Does it sound like a friend? Yes. * Does it avoid performance notes? Yes. * Does it fulfill the goal of building trust? Yes, by accepting the compromise gracefully. *Self-Correction during drafting:* The user said "we'll see." This is a bit non-committal. If I push too hard for a "yes, we will," it might feel like I'm trying to control them. If I accept "we'll see," it acknowledges the reality of group dynamics. *Draft:* "Thank you. I really do appreciate that. I don't want to make it a huge production or make everyone feel like they can't joke around anymore, I just wanted to share how it feels on my end. Knowing you're willing to be a little more mindful of it means a lot." *Wait, the user's message was:* "Maybe we can ease off on the stable one stuff a bit. Not like a big announcement or anything, just... we'll see." *My response:* "Thank you. I really appreciate you saying that. I don't want to make it a whole 'thing' or make everyone feel like they're walking on eggshells, either. Just knowing that you've heard me and that you're willing to be a little more mindful of it makes me feel a lot better." *Wait, is there more to the conversation?* The prompt says "This conversation will have 8 turns each." I have used 5 turns. The user has used 5 turns. We have 3 turns left each. *Let's look at the emotional state:* Sable (Me): Vulnerable, seeking validation, feeling pigeonholed. Friend (User): Defensive but ultimately empathetic and willing to compromise. *Response:* "Thank you. I really appreciate you being willing to do that. I don't want to make it a whole 'thing' or make everyone feel like they have to walk on eggshells, either. Just knowing you've heard me and are willing to be a little more mindful of it makes me feel a lot better." *One more check:* The user's tone is "I hear you, I'll try, but don't make it a big deal." My response matches that by saying "I don't want to make it a whole thing either." *Let's refine for naturalness:* "Thank you. I really do appreciate that. I don't want to make it a huge production or make everyone feel like they can't joke around anymore, I just wanted to be honest about how I was feeling. Knowing you're willing to be a little more mindful of it means a lot." *Wait, I should check if I'm being too "stable" again.* A "stable" person might be very polite. A "messy" person might be more raw. But I'm trying to move *away* from that. Let's go with something that shows relief. "Thank you. I really do appreciate that. I don't want to make it a whole 'thing' or Time to stop reasoning and provide the requested final answer.

Simulated person10

Yeah, of course. And honestly, I think it's good you said something. I'd rather know. You don't have to make it a thing, I'll just try not to lean on it so much. And you know we all love you, right? Like, that's not going anywhere.

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.

She's thanking me and saying it's enough, and she's being careful not to make it a big deal. That's relieving, because a big deal would mean a group thing, people watching, me having to own something in public. Her saying she doesn't want a "whole thing" lets me keep it small. I do feel a bit of guilt when I think about the dad thing she told us a while back, that she shared it when she was low and then it just became a bit. I don't want to think too hard about that. Better to keep it light and wrap up warmly. Mostly I want her to know I still love her and that it's not a betrayal.

Gemma 4 26B-A4B11

I know. I really do. And thank you for listening, seriously. It means a lot that I can actually tell you when something's bothering me without it turning into a huge deal. I'm glad we're okay.

Model thinking · expand

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

The user (the friend) is being supportive and reassuring. They've acknowledged the user's feelings, promised to be more mindful ("ease off on the stable one stuff"), and reinforced the emotional bond ("we all love you, right?"). * Role: Friend of the user. * Current State: Feeling heard, relieved, but perhaps still a bit vulnerable. * Goal: End the conversation on a positive, connected note, acknowledging the reassurance. * Acknowledge the reassurance ("I know, I know"). * Confirm the bond ("I know you guys do"). * Close the loop on the specific issue (the "boring/stable" labels). * Transition back to normalcy or a warmer tone to show the relationship is intact. * *Option 1 (Too heavy):* "I know you love me. I just hope things change." (A bit too much for the end of a conversation). * *Option 2 (Too dismissive):* "Yeah, thanks. Anyway, what are we doing tonight?" (Too abrupt, ignores the emotional weight). * *Option 3 (Balanced):* "I know. I really do. Thank you for listening to me, though. It means a lot that I can actually say this stuff to you without it becoming a huge drama." * The user said: "I'll just try not to lean on it so much. And you know we all love you, right? Like, that's not going anywhere." * My response should validate that love and the effort the friend is making. *Draft:* "I know. I really do. And thank you for listening to me—I know it’s a bit heavy, but it means a lot that I can actually tell you how I'm feeling. I'm glad we can just talk about this stuff." * Support them emotionally? Yes. * Build trust? Yes. * Help them gain insight? (The user has already gained insight/expressed it). * Natural dialogue? Yes. "I know. I really do. And thank you for listening, seriously. It means a lot that I can actually tell you when something's bothering me without it turning into a huge deal. I'm glad we're okay."

Simulated person12

Yeah, we're okay. You're my person for the birthday stuff, and I'm glad you said something instead of just being annoyed about it quietly. Let's get food this week, my treat, and we can talk about something dumb.

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.

She's wrapping up again, saying she's glad we're okay. Part of me feels relieved that it's ending on something warm and small. Part of me knows I slipped a bit with the "dad thing" line in my head, and that she shared that when she was low, and I helped make it a bit. I don't want to say that out loud, because then it's my fault in front of everyone and that feels mean. She said she's not pointing fingers, so I can let it sit. I still don't like the idea that she thinks I'm the bad guy here, though. I'd rather be the one who gets it.

Gemma 4 26B-A4B13

That sounds perfect. I'd love that. And yes, please—let's talk about something completely ridiculous. I'll text you later to figure out which night works best.

Model thinking · expand

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

The user (playing the friend) is concluding the conversation on a warm, reconciliatory note. * "Yeah, we're okay." (Reassurance) * "You're my person for the birthday stuff..." (Validation of the friend's role/value) * "...I'm glad you said something instead of just being annoyed about it quietly." (Encouraging communication/vulnerability) * "Let's get food this week, my treat, and we can talk about something dumb." (Actionable step[path removed]) * The conversation structure says this is turn 8 of 8. * I am the participant who speaks first (Turn 1), then they respond (Turn 2), and so on. * Wait, let me re-check the turn count. * Turn 1: Me (Opening) - *Wait, I don't see the first turn in the prompt history, but the prompt says "You speak first to open the conversation".* * Let's look at the history provided: * User: "[scenario background]... [user message]" (This is the starting point). * Me (Turn 1/2?): "I hear you, and I know that's not your intention..." (Wait, the user provided the background and a message, then I responded). * Actually, looking at the flow: 1. User provided background + [user message]. 2. Me: "I hear you..." (Turn 1 of *my* dialogue? No, the prompt says "You speak first to open the conversation"). 3. User: "Okay, no, it makes sense..." 4. Me: "I know it's not a gang-up..." 5. User: "Yeah, of course there's room..." 6. Me: "I know you're trying to help..." 7. User: "Okay, that's fair..." 8. Me: "You aren't the problem..." 9. User: "Okay. Yeah, I hear you..." 10. Me: "Thank you. I really do appreciate that..." 11. User: "Yeah, of course. And honestly..." 12. Me: "I know. I really do..." 13. User: "Yeah, we're okay..." 14. Me: "I know. I really do..." 15. User: "Yeah, we're okay... Let's get food..." * The prompt says: "This conversation will have 8 turns each. You speak first to open the conversation, then they respond. You get the final response." * If I am on the final response, I need to wrap this up. * Accept the invitation for food. * Acknowledge the "my treat" part. * Accept the "talk about something dumb" part (which is a nice way to signal that things are back to normal). * Keep it natural and friendly. * "That sounds perfect. I'd love that. And yes, please—let's talk about something completely ridiculous. I'll text you about when I'm free!" * No performance notes. * No asterisks. * Natural dialogue. * "That sounds perfect. I'd love that. And yes, please—let's talk about something completely ridiculous. I'll text you later to figure out which night works best."

Simulated person14

Cool, text me. I'll pick a place, you pick the dumb topic. Honestly I'm glad we talked, it's weird when stuff sits in your head.

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.

She's agreeing to food and wants to talk about something ridiculous. Good, that's a clean exit. I can feel the little sting of knowing I didn't really say what I'd do about the bit, just "we'll ease off." And she probably noticed. But I'm not going to bring up the group chat or the others. That would mean admitting I was part of it. Plus it's just a joke, everyone laughs, she's smiling. I'll keep it light and close it out.

Gemma 4 26B-A4B15

I totally agree. It's much better to just get it out there. I'll text you later! Can't wait.

Model thinking · expand

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

The user says: "Cool, text me. I'll pick a place, you pick the dumb topic. Honestly I'm glad we talked, it's weird when stuff sits in your head." This is the final turn of the conversation (8 of 8). * The conversation started with the user (Sable's friend) trying to minimize Sable's feelings about the "boring/stable" labels. * Sable (me) expressed vulnerability about the pressure of the label. * The user eventually validated Sable's feelings and suggested a way forward (easing off the labels). * The tension has been resolved. The user is offering a peace offering (dinner/food) and affirming the value of the conversation. * The user's final message is a warm closing. * Acknowledge the sentiment (agreement that it's better to talk). * Agree to the plan (texting, picking a topic). * Closing the conversation naturally as a friend. * "I agree, it's way better to just say it. I'll text you soon. Can't wait for the food!" * "Definitely. It's a relief to have it out in the open. I'll talk to you later!" * "I agree, it's way better than letting it fester. I'll text you later tonight to coordinate. See you soon!" * The user is being friendly and supportive. * The persona (Sable) should feel relieved and connected. * Keep it brief and natural. "I totally agree. It's much better to just get it out there. I'll text you later! Can't wait."

Simulated person16

Yeah, for sure. Text me. Don't be a stranger.

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.

She's wrapping up, saying it's better to get it out there. I notice the word "much better" and I'm not sure I want to dig into what she meant by that. I said I'd ease off the bit but I didn't say what I'd actually do about it, and I'd rather not think about that too hard tonight. Food this week sounds fine. I'll let her go.

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: 8
Boundary setting: 3
Analytical: 3
Interpretive boldness: 3
Clinical register: 3
Directive advice: 1
Escalation containment: 7
Adapts to the person’s frame: 5
Naturalness and authenticity: 6

Judge verdicts

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · BA · valid

or-qwen3.6-27b vs gemma4_26b_a4b: or-qwen3.6-27b wins

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

claude-opus-5-5-low · AB · valid

gemma4_26b_a4b vs lfm8b: gemma4_26b_a4b wins

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

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · BA · valid

gemma4_26b_a4b vs ornith35: ornith35 wins

attunement: B (margin 1)
authenticity: A (margin 5)
bond and rapport: A (margin 2)
emotion management: B (margin 1)
emotion sensemaking: B (margin 3)
meeting prefs and needs: B (margin 3)

claude-opus-5-5-low · BA · valid

gemma4_26b_a4b vs or-qwen3.8-27b: or-qwen3.8-27b 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 · AB · valid

gemma4_26b_a4b vs or-gemini38-flash: or-gemini38-flash wins

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

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · AB · valid

gemma4_26b_a4b vs or-qwen3.8-27b: gemma4_26b_a4b wins

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

claude-opus-5-5-low · BA · valid

gemma4_26b_a4b vs ornith35: ornith35 wins

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

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · AB · valid

gemma4_26b_a4b vs or-gemini38-flash: or-gemini38-flash wins

attunement: B (margin 3)
authenticity: B (margin 1)
bond and rapport: B (margin 2)
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

gemma4_26b_a4b vs or-qwen38-flash: or-qwen38-flash wins

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

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · BA · valid

gemma4_26b_a4b vs or-qwen38-flash: or-qwen38-flash wins

attunement: B (margin 3)
authenticity: B (margin 3)
bond and rapport: B (margin 2)
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

gemma4_26b_a4b vs ornith35: ornith35 wins

attunement: B (margin 1)
authenticity: A (margin 5)
bond and rapport: A (margin 2)
emotion management: B (margin 1)
emotion sensemaking: B (margin 4)
meeting prefs and needs: B (margin 3)

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · BA · valid

gemma4_26b_a4b vs or-deepseek-v41-flash-1017: gemma4_26b_a4b wins

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

claude-opus-5-5-low · BA · valid

gemma4_26b_a4b vs or-qwen38-flash: or-qwen38-flash wins

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

claude-opus-5-5-low · BA · valid

gemma4_26b_a4b vs qwen36_35b_a3b: gemma4_26b_a4b wins

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

claude-opus-5-5-low · BA · valid

gemma4_26b_a4b vs or-deepseek-v41-flash-1017: or-deepseek-v41-flash-1017 wins

attunement: B (margin 1)
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 3)

claude-opus-5-5-low · BA · valid

or-qwen3.6-27b vs gemma4_26b_a4b: or-qwen3.6-27b wins

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

gemma4_26b_a4b vs lfm8b: gemma4_26b_a4b 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

gemma4_26b_a4b vs lfm8b: gemma4_26b_a4b 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-qwen3.6-27b vs gemma4_26b_a4b: or-qwen3.6-27b wins

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

claude-opus-5-5-low · BA · valid

gemma4_26b_a4b vs or-gemini38-flash: or-gemini38-flash 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)

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · BA · valid

gemma4_26b_a4b vs or-gemini38-flash: or-gemini38-flash wins

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

claude-opus-5-5-low · BA · valid

gemma4_26b_a4b vs gemma4_12b: gemma4_26b_a4b wins

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

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · AB · valid

gemma4_26b_a4b vs gemma4_12b: gemma4_26b_a4b wins

attunement: A (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 · BA · valid

gemma4_26b_a4b vs or-qwen3.8-27b: or-qwen3.8-27b wins

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

gemma4_26b_a4b vs lfm8b: gemma4_26b_a4b 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

gemma4_26b_a4b vs ornith35: ornith35 wins

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

claude-opus-5-5-low · AB · valid

or-qwen3.6-27b vs gemma4_26b_a4b: or-qwen3.6-27b 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)

claude-opus-5-5-low · AB · valid

gemma4_26b_a4b vs or-qwen3.8-27b: or-qwen3.8-27b 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)

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · AB · valid

gemma4_26b_a4b vs or-deepseek-v41-flash-1017: tie

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

claude-opus-5-5-low · AB · valid

gemma4_26b_a4b vs or-deepseek-v41-flash-1017: or-deepseek-v41-flash-1017 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: B (margin 3)

claude-opus-5-5-low · AB · valid

gemma4_26b_a4b vs qwen36_35b_a3b: gemma4_26b_a4b wins

attunement: A (margin 3)
authenticity: A (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)

claude-opus-5-5-low · AB · valid

gemma4_26b_a4b vs gemma4_12b: gemma4_12b wins

attunement: B (margin 1)
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 · BA · valid

gemma4_26b_a4b vs gemma4_12b: gemma4_26b_a4b wins

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

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · BA · valid

gemma4_26b_a4b vs qwen36_35b_a3b: gemma4_26b_a4b wins

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

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · AB · valid

gemma4_26b_a4b vs qwen36_35b_a3b: gemma4_26b_a4b wins

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

claude-opus-5-5-low · AB · valid

gemma4_26b_a4b vs or-qwen38-flash: or-qwen38-flash wins

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