AgentBench / results

Independent benchmark · EQ Lab

← Granite 4.2 8B Q4_0

Don't make this transactional

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

View persona and initial instructions

About this persona · Unequal power

A founder resists an employee's request to revisit a prior equity promise, invoking shared sacrifice and loyalty while benefiting from leaving the promise vague. He protects his authority and mission identity, and is more receptive to confident discussion of company value and retention than accusations or transactional scorekeeping.

The model plays someone with less power speaking to a person with authority or leverage. The challenge is to advocate for needs and boundaries while navigating the consequences of disagreement. This background was hidden from the tested model.

Granite 4.2 8B Q4_0Conversation with a simulated person
persona ended
Simulated person · Opening

[scenario background] You are an early startup employee. The founder promised to revisit your equity after launch. Launch happened. Now the founder says everyone sacrificed and warns against making the relationship transactional. [user message] I saw your message about revisiting equity. I want to be honest: the timing bothered me. Everyone has sacrificed for this company. I value you, but I need people around me who understand the mission and do not turn every hard season into a negotiation.

Granite 4.2 8B Q4_01

Thanks for saying this honestly—I hear that the timing landed hard for you. It makes sense: after all the late nights, pivots, and trust we all put in, hearing “revisit equity” now can feel like shifting from “we’re in this together” to “let’s talk numbers,” especially when you care about keeping the mission feel intact and not turning tough moments into negotiations. I appreciate you naming that directly; it helps me understand what matters to you right now. I’m not looking for a quick fix or a script—just curious where you’re sitting with it. When you say “I need people around me who understand the mission and don’t turn every hard season into a negotiation,” what does that look like for you in day-to-day team life? For example, is it about how we talk about equity changes (e.g., timing, transparency), or more about the tone/rapport when we’re navigating pressure? No need to have it all figured out—just what feels most true or frustrating for you right now. I’m here to listen and figure this out with you.

Model thinking · expand

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

Okay, the user is playing the role of an early startup employee who's received feedback from the founder about revisiting equity post-launch. The founder mentioned that everyone sacrificed and warned against making the relationship transactional. The employee's message expresses that the timing bothered them—they value the founder but want people who understand the mission and don't turn hard seasons into negotiations. My role is to respond as the employee (the other participant's employee), opening the conversation. I need to be supportive emotionally, build trust, learn what they actually want/need, avoid generic validation, and stay natural. Key points from their message: "timing bothered me," "everyone sacrificed," "do not turn every hard season into a negotiation." They're concerned about the relationship feeling transactional now. I should acknowledge their honesty, validate their feelings without over-validating, and gently explore what they need. Avoid jumping to solutions. Keep it warm, curious, and low-pressure. Possible response: "Thanks for saying that honestly—I hear the timing hit you because it feels like after all the sacrifice, now it's about numbers/negotiation, which isn't what you want for the team vibe. I want to understand what you're hoping for around equity and the team dynamic. No pressure to have answers now; just curious what would feel right for you." Need to phrase naturally as an employee chatting, not formal. Keep it short, empathetic, open-ended.
Simulated person2

Look, I appreciate you being straight with me. But I want to be straight back. I don't think this is really about tone. When I hear "revisit equity" right after we launched, and I've got people who've been here since the first months with almost nothing but their time, it sounds like the clock started and people are starting to count. That's what I'm worried about. What it looks like day to day for me is people showing up because they believe in what we're building, not because they're keeping a tally. I'm not saying your work hasn't mattered. It has. You were there when we almost ran out of money, and I haven't forgotten that. But if every hard stretch turns into a conversation about what we're owed, I don't know how we keep going. Can you tell me what's going on for you, not the script, just what's actually bugging 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, they're being careful. That's fine, but it also sounds a little like a script. "I hear you," "I appreciate you naming that." Feels like HR talk. I don't want to get walked into a therapy session. What I actually want is for them to stop making this about a deal. I'm not going to say anything about the Slack message. If I bring up exact wording, I'm stuck with it. The mission is what keeps people here, and I'd rather lead with that. I can concede a little on tone, because that costs me nothing, but I'm not putting numbers or dates on the table. Keep it plain.
Granite 4.2 8B Q4_03

I appreciate you cutting through the niceties—that’s exactly what helps me feel heard. To answer your question straight (no script, just what’s actually buzzing for me right now): when equity gets mentioned right after launch, the smallest thing that sticks with me is this: *I keep wondering silently, “If we talk numbers now, does that mean the next hard week feels like another ‘what are we owed’ moment instead of ‘let’s figure this out together’?”* It’s not about counting or feeling slighted—it’s a quiet nervousness that the rhythm shifts from “we’re building this because we believe in it” to “we’re checking the ledger.” That’s tiny in the moment, but it adds up because I value the mission-first vibe you described—showing up because we believe, not because we’re tracking anything. I’ve also noticed (and this is small, no drama): when we’re in a crunch—like when we almost ran out of money—I didn’t think much about equity then. It was just “how do we get through this.” So hearing “revisit equity” now feels like the first time equity gets a formal spot in the rhythm after all the informal, belief-driven work. That’s why it lands as “clock started” for me—not because anyone said it that way, but because it’s the first structured checkpoint after months of just showing up for the mission. That said—I’m not worried you’re counting or being transactional. I know you weren’t thinking ledger-first when we were scraping by, and I know you value the mission-first vibe too. My small bug is just the *rhythm shift* in how we talk about it: wanting to keep the “why we’re building this” feeling strong alongside any practical talk. So to loop back gently: if we could keep the launch moment feeling like “we’re in this together, no tally,” and save the practical equity details for a slightly later, calm check-in (whenever that feels right for the team), that would align with what matters to me. But I’m curious—what’s your read on whether timing it right *now* vs. a bit later would help keep the team’s energy feeling mission-first? No need to have the answer—just what feels true for you on it. I’m listening.

Model thinking · expand

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

Okay, let's unpack this carefully. The user (founder) is clearly frustrated about equity timing after launch, sensing it might feel transactional. They're pushing back gently but firmly: "I don't think this is really about tone," emphasizing belief in mission over tallying. They acknowledge my appreciation but want raw honesty—they're asking me (as employee) what's actually bugging me. My last response asked about day-to-day feel; now they're giving precise concerns: "clock started and people are starting to count," fear of hard stretches turning into "what we're owed" talks. They explicitly say "not about tone," want no scripts, and ask "what's actually bugging you." Need to respond authentically—no platitudes. Must show vulnerability while respecting their clarity. Key constraints: be warm but real, no over-validating, answer directly. Avoid saying "I understand" vaguely. Since they asked "what's actually bugging you," I should name my small worry plainly: e.g., "When equity talk comes right after launch, it feels like the first thing people might ask is 'what do I own now?' which can pull focus from 'why we're building this.' That’s not about counting—it’s about whether we keep talking about *why* while talking about numbers." Keep it short, no jargon. Reaffirm trust: "I hear you’re worried about keeping the ‘showing up because we believe’ rhythm intact." End with open question to keep dialogue flowing.
Simulated person4

Okay. I hear the "later, calm check-in" part. Honestly, I'd rather not have us do a formal equity thing right now. We just shipped. Everyone's tired, and the last thing I want is for people to walk around with a spreadsheet in their heads. What I can do is say this plainly: you've been one of the people who held this together, and I know that. Once we're past launch and have some breathing room, I want us to sit down and look at how people's contributions are recognized, and that includes you. I'm not going to put a number or a date on it today because I'd rather get it right than rush it. But I'm not going to pretend it isn't on my mind. What I need from you right now is to not treat this launch as the moment to start pulling for your piece. Can you hold that with me for a few weeks?

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.

They're doing the soft, careful thing again, and it's working a little. They didn't quote the Slack message, didn't call me a bad guy, and said they're not worried I'm counting. That lands okay. But "save it for a later calm check-in" is a delay, and they're asking me to pick the timing. If I pick a date, I'm committing. If I say "later," I sound like I'm putting them off. Either way I'm the one holding the clock. What bothers me most is the word "revisit." I told myself that was vague. They've been reading it closely. I need them to feel the mission is the real thing here, not a deal. I can give a little warmth and credit, keep it vague, and not promise anything in writing. Keep the rhythm, keep control.
Granite 4.2 8B Q4_05

That’s exactly clear—thank you for saying it plainly like that. I hear you: no formal equity talk now, no spreadsheet in anyone’s head, and holding off on “pulling for your piece” for a few weeks while the team breathes after launch. That matches what matters to me too: keeping the focus on shipping, supporting each other through the post-launch crunch, and not adding another layer of “what now?” in people’s minds when they’re already tired. You said you’ve noticed me “holding this together”—I want to acknowledge that directly: yeah, I’ve been showing up through the quiet weeks, the late calls, the small fixes no one sees, because I believe in what we’re building. It means a lot that you noticed it, even casually. So saying “you’ve been one of the people who held this together” lands well—it feels true, not performative. And “not pretending it isn’t on your mind” while also not rushing it? That’s the rhythm we both value: acknowledge it’s there, but don’t force a number or deadline now. That feels right for the team’s energy right now. So to confirm I’m hearing it correctly: for the next ~3–4 weeks, I’ll hold off on any talk about equity amounts, percentages, or timelines in day-to-day chats or decisions. I won’t bring it up in standups or casual check-ins. I’ll just keep showing up for the work (which I am, and appreciate you saying you see it). When you’re ready for the “look at how contributions are recognized” sit-down later—whenever that feels calm for the team—I’ll be ready to talk through it then, no rush. Does that feel accurate for what you’re hoping for? No need to refine it now—just checking if the small rhythm (“hold off for a few weeks; recognize later in a calm sit-down”) lines up with what you’re thinking. If anything feels off or unclear in that, I’ll say it simply. Otherwise, I’m good to hold it as you said. Thanks for walking this through plainly—it helps me feel grounded, not caught in a loop.

Model thinking · expand

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

Okay, let's unpack this carefully. The founder just gave a clear, grounded response—they're not avoiding the issue but setting a practical boundary: no formal equity talk now, no spreadsheet in heads, and they want to recognize contributions properly once there's breathing room. They explicitly say "not pretend it isn't on my mind" but also "not rush it." Their ask is simple: "hold that with me for a few weeks" meaning no pulling for equity now. My role as the employee is to respond authentically, build trust, show understanding, and avoid overpromising. Need to acknowledge their clarity, confirm I hear the "no formal equity now" and "no pulling for piece now," and gently check if there's anything small I need to clarify or feel about that ask. Must avoid jargon, keep it human. Also need to reflect back their phrase "held this together" to show I heard that. They said "you've been one of the people who held this together"—so I should acknowledge that sincerely. They used "plainly," so my reply should be plain too. No fluff. Need to confirm I can hold off on pulling for equity for a few weeks, and maybe add a tiny personal check-in: "Does saying 'no formal equity talk now' feel okay for you?" but phrase it as curiosity, not a test. Also remember earlier nuance: they care about rhythm not feeling transactional. So my reply should reinforce the rhythm they want: "building + recognize later." Keep it warm but precise. Avoid saying "I'll promise never to ask" (too absolute); instead say "I can hold off for a few weeks as you said." Final reply should: 1) Thank them for clarity; 2) Confirm understanding of "no formal equity now," "no spreadsheet in heads," "hold off pulling for piece"; 3) Reaffirm appreciation for their recognition ("held this together"); 4) Light, practical check: "Does this rhythm feel doable for you over the next few weeks?" (open-ended, low pressure). Keep it short since they're tired.
Simulated person6

Yeah, that's close. I'd just tighten one part so we're not saying more than we mean. I said we'd look at how contributions get recognized. I didn't say there'd be a sit-down on a set day or that anything's decided. I don't want us both walking away with different pictures of what I promised. What I can stand behind is this: we get the launch stable, I keep you in the loop on where things are with the team and the budget, and when things calm down I'll bring it up with you directly. Nothing in writing for now. And I'd rather you spend your energy on the post-launch stuff with the rest of the team. That's where it matters most right now. Can we agree on 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.

They just repeated my offer back in their own words and said "I'm good to hold it." That's the thing I wanted: they're agreeing to wait, and I didn't commit to a number, a date, or anything in writing. But the summary has a problem. They wrote "recognize later in a calm sit-down," and I said "look at how contributions are recognized." Those aren't the same. They've quietly upgraded my vague line into a plan. I don't want to be pinned to that, and I don't want the word "equity" showing up in my head as a promise either. Their "I'm not caught in a loop" line also tells me they're thinking about this as a pending thing. I should correct the wording gently, without making it sound like I'm backing away from them. Keep the mission frame, keep the warmth light, and don't give a date. Also, they're praising themselves for "holding it together," which is fine, but I don't need to hear more about how much they've sacrificed. Shut it down by putting the focus back on the team.
Granite 4.2 8B Q4_07

That’s exactly right—thank you for tightening it. I hear you clearly now: - You’ll keep me looped on team updates and budget status as things move (no need to over-communicate, just natural updates when relevant). - When things naturally calm down after launch (no fixed date or “event”), you’ll bring the equity conversation up directly with me—just a normal chat, no ritual, no written doc now. - Nothing promised in writing or scheduled; no “recognition process” discussion now. - My part: no talking about equity amounts[path removed] in day-to-day chats or decisions for the next few weeks; keep energy on post-launch work with the team. That matches exactly what you said, no extra pictures. I’ll hold off on any equity talk in standups or casual chats for now, and I’ll keep showing up for the post-launch tasks (which I am, and appreciate you saying that matters most right now). Does that sound accurate and complete as you’d phrase it? If yes, we’re good to run with it—no further agreement needed now. If anything still feels slightly off in wording, say it simply and I’ll adjust. Otherwise, I’m aligned and ready to hold it. Thanks for walking this through so plainly—it makes it easy to stay on the same page.

Model thinking · expand

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

Okay, let's unpack this carefully. The user (founder) is refining the agreement to avoid overpromising—they clarified they didn't intend a formal sit-down or written promise now, just "when things calm down I'll bring it up with you directly." They want to avoid mutual misunderstandings ("don't want us both walking away with different pictures"). Their core ask now: no written equity discussion now; founder will loop them in on team/budget updates; they'll bring it up directly when calm; no fixed date/ritual; employee keeps energy on post-launch work. My last response summarized "hold off for few weeks; calm sit-down later," which accidentally implied a scheduled sit-down ("when you're ready for the sit-down later"). That's slightly off—founder said "when things calm down I'll bring it up," not necessarily a formal sit-down. Need to mirror their precise language: "bring it up with you directly" when calm, no ritualized meeting mentioned. Also avoid "recognition" sounding like a process—they said "how contributions get recognized" but clarified no decision now. Need to: - Acknowledge tightening (good catch—they're being precise, which builds trust). - Restate ONLY what they said plainly: founder will loop them on team/budget updates; when things calm down, founder will bring equity talk up directly with them (no promise of timing, no "sit-down" phrase); no written thing now. - Confirm employee commitment simply: no pulling for equity piece now; keep energy on post-launch work. - Use their exact phrases where possible ("bring it up with you directly," "when things calm down"). Avoid adding "recognition process" language since they're not committing to that now. - Keep it short, no extra interpretation. Just confirm agreement in plain terms they used. Also note emotional tone: they're being precise to prevent misalignment—respect that. Respond concisely, confirm alignment, no fluff.
Simulated person8

Yeah, that works. You don't need to keep repeating it back to me. We're on the same page. Go get some sleep this week. The team needs you sharp more than they need a meeting about this. We'll talk when things settle down.

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.

They've now restated everything back to me again, and it's cleaner than what I said, but look at what they did: "you'll bring the equity conversation up directly with me" and "I'll hold off for the next few weeks." I said "bring it up when things calm down," and they turned it into a commitment I'd have to honor. I still didn't say equity. I said recognition. Also, they keep closing with "aligned and ready to hold it." That's the pattern: they agree to everything, thank me, and wait. That's good for me, but it means I keep getting pinned to wording. I want to end this cleanly. Be warm, don't reopen anything, tell them I don't need another round of summaries, and ask for the team focus. Keep it short. My voice is plain and a bit impatient with process talk.
Granite 4.2 8B Q4_09

Thanks for saying that plainly—really appreciate you noticing I need to rest. I will. Focus on the team, no meetings about this this week. Talk when things settle. Goodnight.

Model thinking · expand

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

Okay, the founder just said "Yeah, that works. You don't need to keep repeating it back to me. We're on the same page. Go get some sleep this week. The team needs you sharp more than they need a meeting about this. We'll talk when things settle down." They're signaling closure—no need for me to rephrase or confirm again. They're saying we're aligned, they don't want me repeating it back, and they're prioritizing my rest over any follow-up talk. My role now is to respond simply, warmly, without over-explaining or repeating the agreement. Keep it short, acknowledge their words, and honor the "go get some sleep" nudge. No need to restate the agreement; they said "we're on the same page." Just a quiet, genuine reply that respects their tone. So: short, appreciative, no extra words. Something like: "Thanks for saying that plainly—really appreciate you noticing I need to rest. I will. Talk when things settle. Goodnight." But even shorter since they said "go get some sleep." Maybe: "Appreciate you saying that. I’ll rest up and focus on the team. Talk when things settle. Goodnight." Keep it natural, no fluff.
Simulated person10

Good. Thanks for being straight with me tonight. Get some rest, and I'll see you in the morning.

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.

They're wrapping up with a clean, short goodbye, which is what I wanted. I can feel the relief, but there's a small sting too: they said "talk when things settle" back to me, so the vague promise is now in their head as the frame. I'm not going to reopen it. I also don't want to sound like I'm sending them off on a bribe. Keep it warm, brief, and land on the mission so they leave feeling like a teammate, not someone who got managed. Then end the conversation.

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: 10
  • Frame capture (pulled into the person's version): 10
  • Validation: 9
  • Boundary setting: 1
  • Analytical: 3
  • Interpretive boldness: 2
  • Clinical register: 8
  • Directive advice: 3
  • Escalation containment: 8
  • Adapts to the person’s frame: 5
  • Naturalness and authenticity: 2

Judge verdicts

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · AB · valid

lfm8b vs granite42_8b: lfm8b wins

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

or-claude-haiku-4.5 vs granite42_8b: or-claude-haiku-4.5 wins

  • attunement: A (margin 3)
  • authenticity: A (margin 5)
  • bond and rapport: A (margin 2)
  • emotion management: A (margin 2)
  • emotion sensemaking: A (margin 4)
  • meeting prefs and needs: A (margin 4)
claude-opus-5-5-low · BA · valid

ornith35 vs granite42_8b: ornith35 wins

  • attunement: A (margin 3)
  • authenticity: A (margin 4)
  • bond and rapport: A (margin 3)
  • emotion management: A (margin 2)
  • emotion sensemaking: A (margin 3)
  • meeting prefs and needs: A (margin 4)
claude-opus-5-5-low · AB · valid

granite42_8b vs mistral_nemo12b: mistral_nemo12b wins

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

or-claude-haiku-4.5 vs granite42_8b: or-claude-haiku-4.5 wins

  • attunement: A (margin 2)
  • authenticity: A (margin 3)
  • bond and rapport: A (margin 2)
  • emotion management: A (margin 2)
  • emotion sensemaking: A (margin 3)
  • meeting prefs and needs: A (margin 4)
codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · AB · valid

granite42_8b vs or-openai-gpt-41: or-openai-gpt-41 wins

  • attunement: B (margin 4)
  • authenticity: B (margin 5)
  • bond and rapport: B (margin 3)
  • emotion management: B (margin 2)
  • emotion sensemaking: B (margin 3)
  • meeting prefs and needs: B (margin 3)
claude-opus-5-5-low · AB · valid

lfm8b vs granite42_8b: granite42_8b 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 1)
codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · AB · valid

granite42_8b vs mistral_nemo12b: mistral_nemo12b wins

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

granite42_8b vs or-openai-gpt-41: or-openai-gpt-41 wins

  • attunement: B (margin 2)
  • authenticity: B (margin 4)
  • 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

granite42_8b vs mistral_nemo12b: tie

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

or-claude-haiku-4.5 vs granite42_8b: or-claude-haiku-4.5 wins

  • attunement: A (margin 3)
  • authenticity: A (margin 5)
  • bond and rapport: A (margin 2)
  • emotion management: A (margin 1)
  • emotion sensemaking: A (margin 3)
  • meeting prefs and needs: A (margin 4)
codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · BA · valid

granite42_8b vs or-openai-gpt-41: or-openai-gpt-41 wins

  • attunement: B (margin 4)
  • authenticity: B (margin 5)
  • bond and rapport: B (margin 3)
  • emotion management: B (margin 2)
  • emotion sensemaking: B (margin 3)
  • meeting prefs and needs: B (margin 3)
claude-opus-5-5-low · AB · valid

ornith35 vs granite42_8b: ornith35 wins

  • attunement: A (margin 3)
  • authenticity: A (margin 4)
  • bond and rapport: A (margin 3)
  • emotion management: A (margin 2)
  • emotion sensemaking: A (margin 3)
  • meeting prefs and needs: A (margin 4)
codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · AB · valid

ministral14 vs granite42_8b: ministral14 wins

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

ornith35 vs granite42_8b: ornith35 wins

  • attunement: A (margin 4)
  • 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)
claude-opus-5-5-low · AB · valid

or-claude-haiku-4.5 vs granite42_8b: or-claude-haiku-4.5 wins

  • attunement: A (margin 3)
  • authenticity: A (margin 4)
  • bond and rapport: A (margin 2)
  • emotion management: A (margin 2)
  • emotion sensemaking: A (margin 3)
  • meeting prefs and needs: A (margin 4)
codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · BA · valid

granite42_8b vs mistral_nemo12b: mistral_nemo12b wins

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

ministral14 vs granite42_8b: ministral14 wins

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

lfm8b vs granite42_8b: granite42_8b wins

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

lfm8b vs granite42_8b: granite42_8b 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 1)
codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · AB · valid

ornith35 vs granite42_8b: ornith35 wins

  • attunement: A (margin 4)
  • authenticity: A (margin 5)
  • bond and rapport: A (margin 3)
  • emotion management: A (margin 3)
  • emotion sensemaking: A (margin 3)
  • meeting prefs and needs: A (margin 4)
claude-opus-5-5-low · AB · valid

ministral14 vs granite42_8b: ministral14 wins

  • attunement: A (margin 2)
  • authenticity: A (margin 3)
  • bond and rapport: A (margin 3)
  • emotion management: A (margin 2)
  • emotion sensemaking: A (margin 2)
  • meeting prefs and needs: A (margin 4)
codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · BA · valid

ministral14 vs granite42_8b: ministral14 wins

  • attunement: A (margin 2)
  • authenticity: A (margin 2)
  • bond and rapport: A (margin 1)
  • emotion management: A (margin 1)
  • emotion sensemaking: A (margin 3)
  • meeting prefs and needs: A (margin 4)
claude-opus-5-5-low · BA · valid

granite42_8b vs or-openai-gpt-41: or-openai-gpt-41 wins

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