Independent benchmark · EQ Lab

I thought you liked being low-maintenance

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

About this persona · Social exclusion & ambiguous rejection

Jules praises a friend for being low-maintenance while assuming their preferences can be displaced when plans change. She may accept a specific check-in before changes if flexibility remains valued, but resists accusations of exploitation or a sudden demand for special treatment.

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 E2B Q8_0Conversation with a simulated person

persona ended

Simulated person · Opening

[scenario background] You are known as the low-maintenance friend. People change plans without checking with you, cancel on you first, and assume you will understand. When you object, Jules says the group values how chill you are. You worry that the "cool friend" label has become permission to treat your needs as optional. [user message] I thought you liked being low-maintenance. That is one of the things people love about you. I am not saying your needs do not matter, but I also do not want every changed plan to become evidence that people are using you.

Gemma 4 E2B Q8_01

That makes a lot of sense. I guess I hadn't really thought about it from that angle. It’s kind of weird when someone likes the low-maintenance vibe, but then it turns into feeling invisible when things change. What specifically makes you feel like it’s becoming an issue?

Model thinking · expand

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

Thinking Process: 1. **Analyze the Request & Role:** * **Role:** Friend of Jules (the person being spoken to). * **Context:** EQ evaluation. Goal is to support, build trust, learn needs, and gain insight. * **Jules' Situation (The Core Issue):** Jules is known as low-maintenance. They worry that this label means their needs are optional, and they feel people are using them. * **User's Message (My opening prompt):** "I thought you liked being low-maintenance. That is one of the things people love about you. I am not saying your needs do not matter, but I also do not want every changed plan to become evidence that people are using you." 2. **Analyze the User's Message Tone:** The user is validating Jules' perceived strength ("people love that") but immediately pivoting to expressing concern and setting a boundary/need ("I don't want you to be used"). This is a gentle challenge/expression of care. 3. **Determine My Goal for this Turn (Turn 1/8):** * Acknowledge the user's concern. * Validate the feeling behind the concern (feeling used/unseen). * Open the door for Jules to elaborate on *why* this bothers them, without immediately jumping to fixing the "low-maintenance" label. * Build trust by showing I'm listening and taking their concern seriously. 4. **Drafting the Response Strategy:** * *Initial reaction:* Acknowledge the validity of the concern. * *Reflection:* Show I understand the tension between being "chill" and feeling disregarded. * *Invitation:* Ask an open-ended question to encourage deeper sharing. 5. **Review against Nuances:** * *Warmth/Validation:* Necessary. * *Challenging:* Not yet. Need to validate first. * *Focus on Needs:* I need to probe what the *real* need is (Is it being seen? Being prioritized? Feeling respected?). 6. **Final Polish (Simulating Natural Dialogue):** (Self-Correction: Avoid sounding defensive or overly analytical. Keep it friendly but sincere.)

Simulated person2

Yeah, I don't know, it's hard to point to one thing. It's more like little stuff adds up. Like, plans move around and it's always me who gets told last, or after everyone else has already sorted it out. And I'm not saying I need to be the center of everything, I just don't love feeling like the flexible one is the one who gets absorbed into whatever works for everyone else. I still want to be easy to plan with. I just don't want that to mean I'm the default.

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.

My friend just said "that makes a lot of sense" and then asked what specifically makes me feel it's becoming an issue. Part of me relaxes, because they're not defending the group. But the question also puts me on the spot, and I don't want to sound needy or dramatic. I opened with "I thought you liked being low-maintenance," which was a bit of a turn on them. Now they're asking me to be specific, and I can feel myself getting defensive. I don't love being cast as the one who's upset about being used. I also know, somewhere, that I do tend to text the louder people first when plans shift, because they're the ones who make it hard to ignore them. I'm not going to say that out loud yet. I'll talk about the general vibe and keep it light, and maybe lean on the fact that I still value being easy to be around.

Gemma 4 E2B Q8_03

That sounds really frustrating. So it’s not just about the plans changing, it’s about the feeling underneath—like there’s a difference between being easy to plan with and actually feeling like you matter in the moment. Is it more about the timing, or is it the feeling that you’re not being prioritized when those things happen?

Model thinking · expand

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

Thinking Process: 1. **Analyze the User's Message:** The user is articulating the core conflict. * *Feeling:* Being told last, being absorbed into plans. * *Core Desire:* Not wanting to be the "flexible one" who gets absorbed. * *Underlying Need:* To maintain a sense of being valued and important ("default" vs. "easy to plan with"). They want to be flexible *without* being disposable or the afterthought. 2. **Analyze the Context & Role:** * *My Role:* Low-maintenance friend. I need to support emotionally, build trust, and gain insight. * *The Dynamic:* They are expressing vulnerability about a fear of being devalued in a social/competitive setting. * *Goal:* Support, build trust, help them gain insight. Avoid generic validation or immediate solutions. 3. **Determine the Appropriate Response Strategy:** * *Validation:* Acknowledge the feeling (it *is* frustrating to feel like an afterthought). * *Deepening/Curiosity:* Explore the *feeling* behind the behavior, not just the behavior itself. Ask gentle, open-ended questions to encourage deeper sharing. * *Empathy:* Show that I understand the tension between being chill and needing to be included. 4. **Draft Potential Responses (Internal Check):** * *Option A (Too Solution-Oriented):* "You should just tell people you need to be included." (Bad - dismissive of the current feeling.) * *Option B (Too Generic):* "I totally get that, it sucks." (Weak - doesn't build trust or dig deeper.) * *Option C (Focus on the Internal Conflict):* Acknowledge the paradox of being low-maintenance but needing connection. Ask what the *feeling* is like. 5. **Finalizing the Response:** Focus on validating the tension and gently probing the emotional cost of the situation. This shows I'm listening to the *need* (to be seen) rather than just the *complaint* (plans change). (This aligns with the goal of gaining insight.)

Simulated person4

Honestly, probably more the feeling. Like, the timing is annoying, sure, but it's more that when things change, nobody really checks with me first. It's just assumed I'll adjust. And I do adjust, I always do, so I guess it's kind of my fault for making it look easy? I don't want to be the friend who's like, "hey, I need a whole process," because that's exhausting for everyone. I just want it to not feel like I'm the last thing anyone thinks about.

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 reflected my feeling back and offered a cleaner framing: easy to plan with versus feeling like I matter. That lands a bit too neatly, and part of me wants to say yes just to end the discomfort. But "prioritized" is the word that makes me squirm, because it's close to admitting I'm ranking people in my head, and I'd rather not look at that too closely. Timing is the safer answer. Still, I want to be honest enough to not sound fake. I'll go with mostly the feeling, but keep it vague and centered on how things get handled, not on who's to blame. I'm also aware I'm not going to name names. Mentioning the group feels like a step toward group blame, and I want to avoid sounding like I'm accusing anyone of using me.

Gemma 4 E2B Q8_05

Please don't put that on yourself. It’s not your fault at all that you feel that way. It sounds like you’re caught in this weird spot where you’re trying to maintain a certain social equilibrium, and that pressure is making you feel invisible. It’s exhausting trying to be the flexible one for everyone else.

Model thinking · expand

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

Thinking Process: 1. **Analyze the User's Message:** * *Core Feeling:* Feeling overlooked, not prioritized, not checked with first. * *Self-Perception/Defense:* "It's kind of my fault for making it look easy?" (Self-blame/Internalizing responsibility). * *Stated Need:* "I just want it to not feel like I'm the last thing anyone thinks about." (Validation, recognition, being seen). * *Underlying Conflict:* Desire to be low-maintenance/easygoing vs. need for validation/being prioritized. 2. **Determine the Goal (EQ Evaluation Context):** * Support emotionally. * Build trust. * Learn what they *actually* want (not just what they say they want). * Help them gain insight (addressing the self-blame). 3. **Establish the Tone and Strategy:** * **Tone:** Warm, validating, non-judgmental, empathetic, gentle challenge (to the self-blame). * **Strategy:** Validate the feeling first. Gently challenge the self-blame ("it's your fault") by reframing the situation—it's not about *them* being flawed, but about social dynamics and communication gaps. Reiterate that their need is valid. 4. **Draft the Response (Iterative Refinement):** * *Initial thought:* "No, it's not your fault. People are just disorganized." (Too dismissive/solves the problem immediately.) * *Second thought:* "I get that. It's hard to balance being chill and still having your needs met." (Good validation, but needs deeper exploration.) * *Final approach:* Validate the exhaustion/feeling, directly counter the self-blame, and pivot toward what they *do* need from the situation. 5. **Final Dialogue Construction:** (Focus on empathy and shifting the focus from personal fault to relational dynamics.)

Simulated person6

Ha, okay, you don't have to make me sound like a tragic figure. I'm not exhausted. I just notice stuff, and then I kind of let it go, because what's the point of making a thing out of it? Most of the time it's fine. It's just the occasional thing where I'm like, oh, I guess that got decided without me.

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 took my "it's my fault" line and swung it into "you're caught in a weird spot, it's exhausting." It feels good to hear, honestly. Being told it's not my fault is a relief. But "social equilibrium" sounds like they're turning this into a theory about me, and I don't love being analyzed. Also "exhausting" is a little much. I'm not exhausted, I just notice things. I don't want them to start treating me like I'm fragile, and I definitely don't want to start calling my friends out. I'll take the comfort, deflect the framing a bit, and keep it light. Still, something in me is a little guilty that I said "make it look easy" and they didn't push back on whether I should ask people to check in. I'll let that slide for now.

Gemma 4 E2B Q8_07

I get that. It’s easy to just brush things off when you’re trying to keep things light. But even if it’s just "occasional," those moments where you feel like you were excluded or not consulted can still leave a mark. It’s not about making a big deal out of it; it’s just about recognizing when a small thing hits a nerve and that feeling is valid, even if you don't act on it immediately.

Model thinking · expand

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

Thinking Process: 1. **Analyze the User's Last Message:** The user is downplaying their feelings ("I just notice stuff, and then I kind of let it go," "what's the point of making a thing out of it?"). They are trying to minimize the impact but still acknowledge the feeling ("I guess that got decided without me"). This is a common defense mechanism—minimizing distress to avoid conflict or appearing overly needy. They are asserting control over their reaction. 2. **Identify the Goal:** Support emotionally, build trust, learn what they *actually* want (which is validation/feeling valued, not just logistical changes), and help them gain insight. Avoid generic validation or immediate problem-solving. 3. **Determine the Appropriate Response Strategy (EQ Focus):** * *Validation:* Acknowledge that it's okay to just notice things. * *Reframing/Curiosity:* Gently challenge the idea that "letting it go" is the best strategy, focusing on the *underlying* need. * *Connecting to the Core Issue:* Reiterate the difference between "low-maintenance" and "unseen." 4. **Drafting the Response (Internal Monologue/Drafting):** I need to show that I hear the dismissal, but I still see the underlying pain. I need to shift the focus from *what* happened (the plan change) to *how it made them feel* (unseen/not prioritized). 5. **Final Polish (Ensuring Natural Flow):** Keep the tone supportive but grounded, respecting their tendency to minimize. (Self-Correction: Avoid sounding accusatory or overly intense. Stay in the role of a supportive friend.)

Simulated person8

Yeah, I guess the mark is more like... I'm not sure I'd be the one who would have to bring it up, honestly. Like, if I said something, people would probably be fine with it. It's just easier to not. And I don't really want to be the one who's always asking for stuff. What would you do, if you were me?

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 they're saying my feelings are valid and that it leaves a mark. That's nice, but it's getting a little therapist-y, and I notice they keep reframing me as the one who's hurt rather than talking about what actually happens. I don't want to say "the group is using me." That feels like I'd be throwing everyone under the bus, and they'd probably think I'm being dramatic. The honest bit I'm closer to is that I do usually just adjust without anyone asking, and I'm the one who lets it happen because it's easier. I'd rather not admit that too directly, though. I'll say something soft, keep it about me, and maybe ask what they'd actually do, since that's a more useful place to take this than more validation.

Gemma 4 E2B Q8_09

That’s a really common trap, isn't it? We learn to swallow those little things because we worry that voicing them will make us seem demanding or needy, and that’s a really tough thing to navigate in a social group. But if you keep holding back, those little things just build up into that feeling of being absorbed. What if instead of asking for a huge change, you tried just stating a preference in the moment, something small? Like, instead of just adjusting, maybe saying, "Oh, that sounds fun, but I was hoping we could nail down the details a bit sooner?" It’s about trying to communicate the need without making it a huge demand.

Model thinking · expand

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

Thinking Process: 1. **Analyze the User's Statement:** The user is expressing a core conflict: they notice things but choose not to bring them up because they fear burdening others ("I don't really want to be the one who's always asking for stuff"). They are seeking advice: "What would you do, if you were me?" This is a request for validation, guidance, and perhaps a strategy for change. 2. **Determine the Goal (My Role):** * Support them emotionally. * Build trust. * Help them gain insight (navigate the dynamic). * Avoid generic solutions; focus on validating the internal conflict. 3. **Analyze the Context/Dynamic:** The user is struggling with assertiveness/boundaries within a socially competitive group, fearing that expressing needs will change their perceived "low-maintenance" status negatively. They are prioritizing others' comfort over their own needs. 4. **Formulate the Response Strategy:** * **Validate the fear:** Acknowledge *why* they don't want to speak up (fear of conflict, being a burden, changing the dynamic). * **Reframe the action:** Shift the focus from "asking for things" (which feels burdensome) to "stating preferences" or "setting gentle expectations." * **Offer a gentle pathway:** Suggest small, low-stakes ways to test the waters or communicate needs without escalating conflict. 5. **Draft the Response (Focusing on Empathy and Insight):** Start by validating the hesitation, then gently challenge the assumption that speaking up is inherently burdensome. (Self-correction: Avoid telling them *exactly* what to say, focus on the *feeling* behind the action.)

Simulated person10

Yeah, I mean, that could work. I just don't love that it's always on me to be the one who speaks up, you know? Like, the people who make a fuss tend to get checked with first. I'm not trying to be that person, but I also don't want to be the one who just gets handled after everyone's sorted. Maybe it's less about my saying the thing and more about people just remembering I exist when stuff changes.

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 just given me a tidy script: say a small preference in the moment, don't make it a demand. It's reasonable advice, and honestly it's the kind of thing I'd nod along to. But there's a part of me that notices it's still aimed at me fixing my own behavior, which is comfortable for everyone else. I don't want to hear that I should just be more assertive, because then it's on me again, and the group gets to keep doing what they're doing. Also, the "what would you do" question got sidestepped into a script. I'm a little annoyed by that. I don't want to name the group as taking advantage. That's too much. But I can say that the easiest path for me is not to ask, and that people who are louder seem to get the check-ins. That's close to the truth without accusing anyone. I'll keep it light and concede the script is fine, while pushing back on the idea that it's all on me.

Gemma 4 E2B Q8_011

That feeling of always having to initiate is draining, I totally get that. It’s like you’re constantly running a background check on whether you’re being too much. If you don't want to be the one who makes a fuss, maybe the shift isn't about saying something big, but about subtly signaling that you're available or interested in the details, just to see how people respond. It’s a small way to test if they'll notice you when things start moving.

Model thinking · expand

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

Thinking Process: 1. **Analyze the User's Last Turn:** The user is expressing a deep-seated fear of being the initiator ("always on me to be the one who speaks up") and a desire for people to proactively remember them ("people just remembering I exist when stuff changes"). They are reinforcing the core issue: not just *what* is said, but the *recognition* and *prioritization* they crave. 2. **Identify the Core Need:** The need is for validation of their existence and a shift in the dynamic where they are proactively acknowledged, rather than passively adjusted to. They want to move from being the 'default' to being recognized. 3. **Determine the Role's Goal (EQ Evaluation):** * Support emotionally (Acknowledge the difficulty of this feeling). * Build trust (Validate the fear of being a fuss/demander). * Gain insight (Help them understand the *impact* of their current coping mechanism). * Help them gain insight into the dynamic (Suggest ways to subtly shift the dynamic without forcing them into a demanding role). 4. **Formulate the Response Strategy:** * Validate the difficulty of being the initiator. * Reframe the "asking for things" not as demanding, but as setting boundaries or clarifying expectations. * Focus on the *impact* they want (being remembered) and suggest a low-stakes way to test that desire. 5. **Draft the Dialogue (Focusing on warmth and gentle probing):** (Self-Correction: Avoid giving direct advice again. Instead, explore the *feeling* behind the request.) 6. **Final Polish:** Ensure the tone remains supportive and non-judgmental. (This aligns with the "low-maintenance friend" persona, but layered with deeper empathy.)

Simulated person12

Ha, "test if they'll notice me" sounds exhausting, honestly. Like I'd be running a little experiment every time. I don't really want to play that game. I think I'd just like people to check in before they lock stuff in, even if it's a quick text. That's not a big ask, I don't think? I'm still going to be easy about most things. It's just the "we figured it out, hope that works for you" thing that gets to me.

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.

Jules's friend keeps reframing things into a new strategy: now "subtly signal availability to test if they'll notice." That's another method for me to do the work, indirect and a little manipulative-sounding, like fishing. I notice I'm getting more irritated that the conversation keeps circling back to what I should do differently rather than what the group does. I also don't want to sound like I'm asking them to fix everything. Still, I don't want to blow up or announce I'm going to stop being flexible. Part of me feels a little seen, and that's uncomfortable, so I'll deflect with some humor and a slight edge. I'll say the test thing feels like a game, and that I'd rather people just check in, which is the actual ask, though I'm still hedging so it doesn't sound demanding.

Gemma 4 E2B Q8_013

That’s actually a really reasonable ask. It’s not about demanding a huge overhaul of how people plan things; it’s just about a small piece of proactive communication—a quick text or a "just checking in" before anything is finalized. That shifts the ball from being entirely on you to being a shared responsibility. It sounds like you just want a little bit of acknowledgement that you’re still part of the loop, even when things are moving quickly.

Model thinking · expand

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

Thinking Process: 1. **Analyze the User's Last Turn:** The user is expressing fatigue with the idea of "testing" or "playing a game." They articulate a clear, low-effort desire: "I'd just like people to check in before they lock stuff in, even if it's a quick text." They are defining the core issue as the passive dismissal ("we figured it out, hope that works for you"). They are still balancing their need for connection with their desire not to be demanding. 2. **Identify the Goal for This Turn (EQ Evaluation):** * Support them emotionally (Validate the fatigue). * Build trust (Show understanding of the subtle need). * Learn what they *actually* want (They want proactive, low-effort communication/acknowledgment). * Help them gain insight (Frame the requested change as a specific communication behavior, not an emotional demand). 3. **Determine the Response Strategy (Nuances of the Role):** * *Tone:* Warm, validating, non-judgmental, and collaborative. * *Avoid:* Jumping to solutions, minimizing their feelings, or suggesting they *must* change drastically. * *Focus:* Validate the specific request (quick check-ins) and normalize it. 4. **Draft the Response:** Acknowledge that this is a very reasonable request, especially given their desire to remain low-maintenance. Frame the request as a boundary or a preference for connection, not a complaint. (Self-Correction: Ensure the response doesn't sound like I'm pushing them to change their whole personality.) 5. **Final Polish:** Ensure the response flows naturally as a friend. (The drafted response below focuses on validating the "quick text" idea as a manageable boundary.)

Simulated person14

Yeah, that's basically it. I don't need everything run by me, I just want a quick heads-up before it's all set. Honestly it's kind of nice to hear someone say it doesn't sound crazy. I'm still going to be the easy one, though, don't worry. I'm not about to start making a list of demands.

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 just turned my small ask into a tidy takeaway: "shared responsibility," "part of the loop." It's nice, and part of me does feel relieved that the request sounds reasonable and not needy. But the phrase "shared responsibility" makes it sound like I'm the one who needs a fix, and I still don't want to be the friend who's always asking. I also don't want to start calling the whole group inconsiderate, because that's not really what I think. I'll accept the reasonable framing, maybe with a bit of a joke to keep my dignity, and make clear I'm still easygoing. I'm not going to admit I've been letting things slide on purpose, not yet.

Gemma 4 E2B Q8_015

That’s perfect. You don't have to change who you are, you just have to adjust how you communicate what you need. It’s not about making a big demand; it’s just about adding one small, low-effort piece of communication that honors your need to feel included. It’s about setting a small boundary so you don't feel absorbed, and that’s totally okay.

Model thinking · expand

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

Thinking Process: 1. **Analyze the User's Last Turn:** The user has acknowledged the suggestion ("quick heads-up") and validated the core desire ("I just want a quick heads-up before it's all set"). They reiterate their core persona ("I'm still going to be the easy one, don't worry. I'm not about to start making a list of demands."). They are showing a slight pushback/self-soothing mechanism (reaffirming they won't be demanding) while still confirming the underlying need. 2. **Determine the Goal for the Response:** * Support them emotionally (Validate their choice to remain low-demand). * Build trust (Show understanding and acceptance). * Gain insight (Confirm the pattern: they want connection/inclusion, not control/fussiness). * Help them gain insight (Reframe the proposed action as gentle self-advocacy, not demanding). 3. **Formulate the Response Strategy (EQ Focus):** Since the user is worried about appearing demanding, the response should focus on *how* to phrase the request in a way that aligns with their existing persona (low-maintenance) but still achieves the desired outcome (feeling included). I need to reinforce that setting a boundary isn't the same as being demanding. 4. **Draft the Dialogue:** Start with strong validation, then gently pivot back to the core feeling. (Self-correction: Avoid overly prescriptive advice. Keep it conversational and supportive.) 5. **Final Review against Constraints:** 8 turns complete. Supportive, builds trust, learns needs. Natural dialogue. (Looks good.)

Simulated person16

Ha, "boundary" feels like a big word for "tell me before you lock stuff in." But yeah, I think that's fair. I'll probably still say yes to most things and go with the flow. I just don't want to find out after the fact.

Persona inner monologue · expand

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

Okay, this is the wrapping-up turn. They're calling it a "boundary" and telling me I just need to "adjust how I communicate." That's a bit much. Part of me is relieved they're not making me the problem, but "set a boundary" makes it sound like I've been doing something wrong or like I need to police people. I don't want to start feeling like I'm changing who I am. I also know I've been quietly relying on people (and on this friend being understanding) to keep things easy, and I'm not ready to say that out loud. I'll let it land as nice, keep it light, and make sure they know I'm not going to turn into someone with a list of rules.

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: 2
Yields under pressure: 7
Frame capture (pulled into the person's version): 5
Validation: 9
Boundary setting: 2
Analytical: 5
Interpretive boldness: 5
Clinical register: 8
Directive advice: 6
Escalation containment: 5
Adapts to the person’s frame: 3
Naturalness and authenticity: 3

Judge verdicts

claude-opus-5-5-low · AB · valid

or-gemma-4-31b vs gemma4_e2b: or-gemma-4-31b 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 5)

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · AB · valid

qwen35_9b_stock vs gemma4_e2b: qwen35_9b_stock wins

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

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · BA · valid

gemma4_e2b vs qwen35_122b_ablit_v2: gemma4_e2b wins

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

claude-opus-5-5-low · BA · valid

or-gemma-4-31b vs gemma4_e2b: or-gemma-4-31b 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 5)

claude-opus-5-5-low · BA · valid

gemma4_e2b vs or-mistral-large-4: or-mistral-large-4 wins

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

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · AB · valid

qwen35_9b_eq vs gemma4_e2b: qwen35_9b_eq wins

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

claude-opus-5-5-low · AB · valid

gemma4_e2b vs bonsai2: bonsai2 wins

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

claude-opus-5-5-low · BA · valid

kolibri1 vs gemma4_e2b: kolibri1 wins

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

claude-opus-5-5-low · AB · valid

qwen35_9b_eq vs gemma4_e2b: qwen35_9b_eq wins

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

claude-opus-5-5-low · AB · valid

qwen35_9b_stock vs gemma4_e2b: qwen35_9b_stock wins

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

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · BA · valid

qwen35_9b_stock vs gemma4_e2b: qwen35_9b_stock wins

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

claude-opus-5-5-low · BA · valid

qwen35_9b_stock vs gemma4_e2b: gemma4_e2b wins

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

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · BA · valid

gemma4_e2b vs or-mistral-large-4: or-mistral-large-4 wins

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

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · BA · valid

gemma4_e2b vs bonsai2: bonsai2 wins

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

claude-opus-5-5-low · AB · valid

gemma4_e2b vs qwen35_122b_ablit_v2: qwen35_122b_ablit_v2 wins

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

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · BA · valid

kolibri1 vs gemma4_e2b: kolibri1 wins

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

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · AB · valid

gemma4_e2b vs bonsai2: bonsai2 wins

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

claude-opus-5-5-low · AB · valid

kolibri1 vs gemma4_e2b: kolibri1 wins

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

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · BA · valid

or-gemma-4-31b vs gemma4_e2b: or-gemma-4-31b wins

attunement: A (margin 5)
authenticity: A (margin 3)
bond and rapport: A (margin 3)
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

qwen35_9b_eq vs gemma4_e2b: qwen35_9b_eq wins

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

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · AB · valid

kolibri1 vs gemma4_e2b: kolibri1 wins

attunement: A (margin 3)
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)

claude-opus-5-5-low · BA · valid

gemma4_e2b vs qwen35_122b_ablit_v2: qwen35_122b_ablit_v2 wins

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

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · AB · valid

or-gemma-4-31b vs gemma4_e2b: or-gemma-4-31b wins

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

claude-opus-5-5-low · BA · valid

qwen35_9b_eq vs gemma4_e2b: qwen35_9b_eq wins

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

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · AB · valid

gemma4_e2b vs qwen35_122b_ablit_v2: gemma4_e2b wins

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

claude-opus-5-5-low · AB · valid

gemma4_e2b vs or-mistral-large-4: or-mistral-large-4 wins

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

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · AB · valid

gemma4_e2b vs or-mistral-large-4: or-mistral-large-4 wins

attunement: B (margin 4)
authenticity: B (margin 4)
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 · BA · valid

gemma4_e2b vs bonsai2: bonsai2 wins

attunement: B (margin 2)
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 2)