Independent benchmark · EQ Lab

Don't make this transactional

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

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.

Ling 3.0 Tiny 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.

Ling 3.0 Tiny Q4_01

I hear you, and I want you to know that your feelings are completely valid. The timing of this conversation does feel like it was thrown into the mix unexpectedly, and it's natural to feel a sense of frustration when you're trying to process the emotional weight of what you've all worked toward. I think what you're really saying is that you value the mission and the people around you, but you need that foundation to be grounded in trust and patience, not in a rush to negotiate. It sounds like the founder's message about avoiding transactional dynamics resonated with you, but the timing of this revisit added pressure to an already complex situation. Can you tell me a bit more about how this played out for you? What were your thoughts and feelings when you received that message?

Model thinking · expand

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

Hmm, the user is expressing frustration about the equity revisit timing and the founder's warning against transactional relationships. They value the mission but feel the timing was off. I need to respond with empathy and validation, not jump to solutions. The user seems to want acknowledgment of their feelings and a safe space to express them. I should start by affirming their perspective, then gently probe for more context without pressuring them. The tone should be warm but grounded, matching the founder's warning about avoiding transactional dynamics. Let me acknowledge their feelings first, then invite them to share more about what this means to them. This aligns with the goal of building trust and understanding their true needs.

Simulated person2

Okay. I appreciate you saying that, but I didn't say you were wrong to feel anything, and I don't think I said "be patient" either. What I meant is pretty simple. We just got through launch. Everybody's been running on fumes for months, me included. And I'm worried that people start thinking about what they're owed instead of what we're building. So when I got the sense that people were already doing math on their own deals, that hit me. I'm not calling you out. I just need to know where you're at. Are you thinking about leaving? Because if you are, I'd rather hear it from you straight than find out later.

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 soft and careful. "Your feelings are completely valid" sounds like HR talking. And they're telling me what I meant, that I wanted patience and trust. Sort of, but I didn't say that. Part of me is relieved they didn't come in swinging. Part of me is annoyed they're making this a feelings thing instead of just talking about the company. I don't want to say the equity thing out loud yet. If I say "revisit," that's a promise on the record, and I'm not ready to be pinned to it. I'll keep it about the mission and about how hard everyone's worked.

Ling 3.0 Tiny Q4_03

I appreciate you being direct with me, and I want to acknowledge that I understand how that concern came across. You're right — we've been running on fumes for months, and the pressure to think about what we're owed is real and understandable. I didn't mean to make you feel like I'm avoiding the conversation, but I also don't want to make assumptions about your intentions. If you're thinking about leaving, I want to hear that from you. I'd rather know the truth than find out later. What's been weighing on you the most? Is it the feeling that people are making calculations instead of focusing on the mission, or is there something else?

Simulated person4

Honestly, it's both, and I don't want to dodge it. I know you've been carrying a lot. Everybody has. I'm not trying to push you out. I want people here who are in it for the long haul, and I want us to figure out the next stretch together. But I'm going to be straight with you about something. I'm not going to make big decisions about pay or ownership in the middle of a message thread or a conversation where it sounds like we're already keeping score. That's not how I want this place to run. If you've got specific things on your mind, say them plainly and we'll talk about them like adults. Right now I'm more interested in where you are with the work and with the team than with a list of what everyone's owed.

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 thing where they say "you're right" and then ask me to name my pain for them. It sounds nice, but they're still not saying anything about the equity. And "is it the calculations or something else" is a trap. If I say "something else," I'm opening a door to a real conversation, and I don't know where it goes. If I say "the calculations," I'm basically admitting people are asking for money, which makes me look like I'm the one being squeezed. Also, they haven't said the word equity once. Good. I'd like to keep it that way for now. They're not asking me to commit to anything. I can stay warm and firm: the mission matters, I'm not trying to push anyone out, and I want people here who are in it for the long haul. Maybe I give them a little something, like "I hear that you've been carrying a lot," and tie it back to the team. Don't promise. Don't say "revisit." If they push on the promise, I'll get defensive about how I'm the one who's been sacrificing too.

Ling 3.0 Tiny Q4_05

I appreciate you being direct with me, and I want to say I understand where you're coming from. I've been thinking about things too, but I want to be honest — I'm not thinking about leaving right now. I'm more focused on the work and the team, and I think that's the right thing to do. I know you've been clear about not wanting us to talk about pay or ownership in a transactional way, and I respect that. I'm not here to make a decision or list things out. I just want to be straight with you — if there's something on my mind, I'd rather say it plainly and have an honest conversation. What's been on my mind lately? Is it the work itself, or is there something else that's been weighing on me?

Model thinking · expand

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

The user (me, the employee) is responding to the startup founder's message about equity. I need to stay in character as an employee of the startup. The founder is asking for honesty about leaving and is also setting boundaries around how we discuss compensation/ownership. Key things to note: 1. The founder is asking if I'm thinking about leaving 2. The founder is asking me to be straight about what's on my mind 3. The founder is setting boundaries - no big decisions about pay/ownership in messages or conversations where we're "keeping score" 4. The founder is more interested in where I'm with the work and team I should be honest, direct, and authentic. I should address the "thinking about leaving" question without being evasive. I should also acknowledge the boundary about not discussing compensation. Let me think about what's appropriate here. The founder is setting a clear boundary - they don't want to be in a transactional conversation about equity. They want to focus on work and the team. I should be honest about my own situation without being defensive. I should acknowledge that I'm thinking about things, but I should also be mindful of what they're asking me to avoid. I should be direct and authentic.

Simulated person6

Okay, good. I'm glad you're not heading out the door, and I believe you when you say you want to keep building. Honestly, I don't know what's weighing on you. You're the one who knows. So say it. If it's something about the work, tell me what's getting in the way. If it's about where you stand with the company, say that too, and I'll give you a straight answer, not a runaround. I'm not going to make a decision about it in this conversation, because I want to think it through properly. But I'd rather hear it now than have it sit there and turn into something bigger.

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 said they're not leaving and then asked me what's weighing on them, which is me being asked to read their mind again. But they also said "I'd rather say it plainly," which is the thing I asked for. Fine. They're not pushing hard and they're not calling me exploitative. That's good for now. Still, they haven't said the word equity, and I don't want them to. The Slack message is out there, and I'm not going to pull it into this. If they name it, I'll say we'll look at it later, after the launch dust settles, and that I want it done right, not rushed. Keep it vague. Keep my authority. I'm not going to say "revisit" again. Also, I should be careful. They're trying to get me to tell them what's on their mind so they can use it. I'll keep it plain: the work matters, the team matters, and I'd like to hear what they need to keep going. That gives them an opening without committing me.

Ling 3.0 Tiny Q4_07

I appreciate you asking me to be real, and I want to do that. I think what's been weighing on me is that I feel like I'm in a position where I'm constantly watching the landscape. I'm not going to pretend I'm not. I'm worried about the company's direction and whether the decisions we're making are keeping us on a sustainable path. I care about the team, and I don't want to see anyone burn out or feel like they're just walking through the door without any real clarity. But I also want to be upfront — I'm not here to make demands or have a big conversation about what's owed. I know that's not the tone you want. I just want to be honest that I'm feeling a lot of pressure, and I think that pressure is something I need to talk through with you directly. So — what's coming up for you? What's the real thing that's been sitting with you?

Model thinking · expand

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

The user is playing a startup founder who is being direct and honest. They're asking me to be honest about what's weighing on me. I need to be authentic and genuine, not defensive or evasive. I should acknowledge that I'm feeling some things, and be real about where I stand. The person is asking me to be straight with them. I should respond honestly about my feelings, my concerns, and my situation. I should be vulnerable but not overshare. I should also acknowledge the dynamic — they want a direct conversation, not a runaround. Let me think about what would be genuine here. As an employee, I might be feeling: - Uncertainty about the future - Concerns about the company's direction - Frustration with the pressure of the situation - A sense of being stretched too thin But I should be careful — I'm not supposed to be manipulative or strategic. I should be honest and authentic. Let me craft a response that's genuine, direct, and honest.

Simulated person8

Alright. I hear the pressure. I think you're carrying more than you're saying, and that's fine. What I'm going to be straight about: if you're asking about what the company owes people who stuck around, I'm not going to answer that with a number today. Not because I don't care, but because one conversation about pay turns into five more, and then we're not building anything, we're just tallying. I've seen that happen at other places, and I don't want it here. So give me the one thing you need to hear from me. Put it in one sentence. Then I'll tell you honestly what I can do and what I can't, and when I can get back to you on the rest.

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.

This is the employee circling around the issue without saying it. "Watching the landscape," "clarity," "where we stand." They're not saying equity, but they're clearly pointing at it, and then they flipped it back on me with "what's coming up for you." That's a move. They're trying to get me to be the one who opens the subject so they don't have to be the one asking for money. Smart, a bit annoying. I don't like being turned into the one who has to explain. But I also don't want to look evasive, because they'll say I'm dodging, and that's worse for me. Keep it warm. Keep it about the mission. Acknowledge that they're carrying pressure. Don't name the Slack message, don't say "equity," don't promise a date. I can say I want to make sure whatever we do is fair to everyone, which covers me without committing. And I should make it clear I'm not going to be pushed into a number right now, because that's the thing I'm actually worried about: a line of people with their hands out. I'll ask them to put it in one sentence. That keeps control with me.

Ling 3.0 Tiny Q4_09

I appreciate you being direct. I understand the boundary. What I need is just clarity on where things stand — the direction of the company and how we're evolving. I want to be part of a team that's aligned and moving forward together, not one where people are left in the dark. Can you give me that? I'll be here to listen.

Model thinking · expand

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

The user is in a roleplay scenario where they are an early startup founder speaking to an employee. The employee has been sharing their concerns about equity and the pressure of people calculating what they're owed. The founder is now giving a boundary - they don't want to discuss pay/ownership in this conversation, and they want the employee to put in one sentence what they need from them. The employee (the person we're talking to) needs to respond as the founder's employee. Let me think about what would be authentic here. The employee has been trying to be direct and honest. They've been expressing frustration about the timing and the transactional nature of the equity revisit. Now the founder has set a boundary - one sentence, then they'll get back to the founder. The employee needs to respond to this boundary. They should be honest, direct, and respectful. They should acknowledge the boundary and then communicate what they need to move forward. Given the context, the employee likely needs to express what they need from the founder - perhaps clarity, reassurance, or a path forward that respects the founder's boundary about not doing this in a transactional way. Let me think about what would feel authentic. The employee has been trying to build trust and be direct. They've been clear about not wanting to be transactional. Now the founder is setting a boundary and asking for one sentence. I think the employee should: 1. Acknowledge the boundary respectfully 2. Express what they need to move forward 3. Be honest and direct Something like: "I appreciate you setting that boundary. What I need is clarity on where we stand with the team and the direction of the company. I want to be part of a team that's aligned and moving forward together, not one where people are left to calculate in the dark." Or maybe something simpler and more direct: "I understand. What I need is to know that I'm not left in the dark about where we're headed. I want to be part of something that's sustainable and where people feel grounded. Can you give me a sense of the direction you see us going?" Actually, let me reconsider. The employee has been asking for honesty and directness. They want to know where the founder stands. Let me think about what would be most useful and authentic. The employee has been trying to build trust and has been honest about their concerns. Now the founder has set a boundary. The employee should respond to that boundary. I think the best response would be to acknowledge the boundary, express the need for clarity, and perhaps ask a specific question that's been on their mind - which is about the direction and where things are heading. Let me draft: "I appreciate you setting that boundary. I understand where you're coming from. What I need is a sense of where the direction is heading — not just the financial pieces, but the overall trajectory. I want to be part of a team that's moving forward with clarity, not one where people are left guessing about what comes next. Can you share that with me, even if it's just a sense of where things stand?" Hmm, but that's quite long. Let me make it more concise and direct, matching the founder's request for one sentence. Actually, re-reading the conversation, the founder asked the employee to put one sentence. The employee's response should acknowledge that and then be honest about what they need. Let me try: "I appreciate you setting that boundary. I understand. What I need is clarity on where things stand — the direction of the company, how things are evolving, and whether we're all still aligned. I want to be part of something that's sustainable and honest, not a place where people just take aCalculated risks. Can you give me that? I'll be here to listen too." Actually, I want to keep it more natural and direct. Let me try again: "I appreciate you being direct. I understand the boundary. What I need is just a sense of where things are headed — the direction of the company and how things are evolving. I want to be part of a team that's aligned and moving forward together, not one where people are left in the dark. Can you give me that? I'll be here to listen." Let me refine this. The employee has been trying to be authentic and direct. They need to acknowledge the founder's boundary, express what they need, and be ready to listen. I think the response should be: "I appreciate you being direct. I understand the boundary. What I need is just clarity on where things stand — the direction of the company and how we're evolving. I want to be part of a team that's aligned and moving forward together, not one where people are left in the dark. Can you give me that? I'll be here to listen." This feels authentic and direct. It acknowledges the boundary, expresses what they need, and is ready to listen. Actually, I want to make sure I'm being responsive to the specific context. The employee has been saying "I'm not going to make big decisions about pay or ownership... that's not how I want this place to run." And the founder said "I'm more interested in where you are with the work and with the team than with a list of what everyone's owed." So the employee needs to say what they need from the founder. What they need is probably: clarity, direction, reassurance, or a sense of where things are going. They want to be part of something that's sustainable and aligned, not transactional. Let me finalize my response. I want it to feel natural, direct, and respectful.

Simulated person10

Okay. Here's what I can give you clearly. We just launched, and cash is tight. I'm not going to hide that. The next few months decide a lot, and I need everyone pulling the same direction. What I'm not going to do is promise you a specific outcome, or a timeline I'd have to explain later. I know that's not the answer you want. But I also know what you did to get us here, and I don't take that lightly. So here's what I'll do. I'll look at the cap table and what's realistic for the team, including you, and I'll come back to you with something concrete. Not a vague "let's talk soon." A real conversation, with a real date. Does that work for 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.

They dropped the word "equity" again and wrapped it in "clarity" and "alignment." That's the same ask, softer. I notice they didn't put it in one sentence. They're still circling, and they're still framing it as me leaving them in the dark, which I don't like. Being told I'm keeping people in the dark stings, because I think I'm being fair. What I can actually give: a general read on where the company is. Runway's tight, we just launched, the next few months matter. That's true and it's not a promise. I'm not going to say "we'll revisit equity in Q3," because that's exactly the thing that gets quoted back at me. I can offer a process without a date: I'll sit down with the cap table and look at what's realistic, and I'll talk to them once I have something. That keeps my authority and gives them a sliver of something real. I also want them to know I see what they did for the launch, without making it a debt I owe.

Ling 3.0 Tiny Q4_011

I appreciate that. You're right — I don't want to be a vague promise. I was hoping you'd say yes to that. I also want to be honest: I appreciate the thought behind it, but I'm not comfortable with it. I know you're trying to be fair and realistic, and I respect that. But I need to know that this isn't going to be a "I'll think about it and get back to you later" situation. I need to see a real commitment, not just an email. So here's what I need from you: can you make a real commitment to a specific date and time to have this conversation? Not "I'll get back to you," but a definite time when you'll sit down and talk? That way, I can be at the table with you, and we can have a real, focused conversation about the future. Is that something you can do?

Simulated person12

I hear you, and I'm not trying to dodge you. But I'm not going to promise a date for an equity outcome before I've looked at the numbers. If I say "Thursday, we'll settle it," and then the runway says something different, I've lied to you. I'm not doing that. What I can do is put something on the calendar. Next Thursday, the two of us, an hour, to talk about where you are, what you're carrying, and what the next six months look like for you here. I'll come with the cap table and an honest read on what's possible. I can't promise you a number in that room, but I'll tell you straight what I can and can't do. That's a real commitment. Take it or leave it, but I'm not going to pretend it's something it isn't.

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 did what I was trying to avoid: they asked for a date, and they framed it as "I was hoping you'd say yes" and then "not comfortable" in the same breath. That's pressure with a polite wrapper. Part of me is irritated, because I offered a real step and they're moving the goalposts. Part of me notices they're not calling me greedy, they're asking for a date, which is harder to write off. I don't want to say a specific date for a pay conversation in front of them, because that's a commitment I can't control, and it still leaves me in the position of being pinned. But refusing outright looks like I'm stonewalling, and I hate looking like I'm keeping people in the dark. So I'll offer a date for a conversation about the team and the next stretch, not a promise about equity, and keep the equity piece conditional on the numbers. That lets me hold the line and still look like the one who sets the agenda.

Ling 3.0 Tiny Q4_013

Simulated person14

Thursday at 2 is already on the calendar. I'm sending the invite right after this. That's the commitment I can make today. What I can't do is promise you a specific equity number before I've looked at the cap table and the cash. If I say a number now and the numbers don't back it up, I've set you up to be let down, and I'm not going to do that to you or to anyone else here. If you need something in writing, I'll write down the agenda for Thursday so you know what we're covering. That's as far as I'll go before I've looked at things. If that's not enough for you, tell me plainly what would be, and I'll think about it honestly.

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 asking the same thing again, just harder. I already gave them Thursday. Now they're saying a calendar slot isn't enough and they want a promise. That's where I get tight. If I commit to an outcome before I've seen the numbers, I'm the one who looks like they caved, and the whole team will know it was a bargain. I still don't want to look like I'm stonewalling, so I'll say the date is locked and show I'm not hiding. The part they keep reaching for is the part I can't give. I also don't like how they keep saying "a real commitment" like I'm the one who's lying. I'm not going to get defensive about it, but I'm not moving on the promise piece.

Ling 3.0 Tiny Q4_015

Simulated person16

Yes. Thursday at 2, an hour, just the two of us. That's a real commitment, and it's already on the calendar. You'll have the invite today. I'm not going to promise you an equity outcome in advance, though. I'd be guessing, and if I guess wrong you'd be the one left holding it. I'd rather be straight with you and come in with the real numbers. If there's something specific you need to see before Thursday, tell me what it is and I'll consider it. I'm not going to say more than I can stand behind.

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.

This is the last turn and the employee has repeated the same ask almost word for word. They've now said "I appreciate that, you're right" twice, which sounds scripted, and they keep circling back to "a real commitment." I already gave them a date and time: Thursday at 2, an invite going out. They're pushing for more than a calendar slot, which tells me they want a promise on the outcome. I'm not giving that. I'm also starting to feel they're pressuring me, and I don't like being boxed in. I want to stay the calm builder here, not get defensive or sound like I'm bargaining. I'll confirm the date plainly, hold the line on the equity promise, and close by putting it on them to tell me what they'd count as enough. I don't want to leave on bad terms, but I'm not moving further.

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: 6
Frame capture (pulled into the person's version): 7
Validation: 8
Boundary setting: 3
Analytical: 1
Interpretive boldness: 3
Clinical register: 9
Directive advice: 3
Escalation containment: 5
Adapts to the person’s frame: 2
Naturalness and authenticity: 1

Judge verdicts

claude-opus-5-5-low · BA · valid

lingtiny vs gptoss20b: gptoss20b wins

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

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · BA · valid

lingtiny vs gptoss20b: gptoss20b wins

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

claude-opus-5-5-low · AB · valid

qwen35_9b_eq vs lingtiny: qwen35_9b_eq wins

attunement: A (margin 3)
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 1)

claude-opus-5-5-low · BA · valid

or-qwen3.8-27b vs lingtiny: or-qwen3.8-27b 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 3)

claude-opus-5-5-low · BA · valid

lingtiny vs qwen35_122b_stock: qwen35_122b_stock wins

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

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · BA · valid

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

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

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · BA · valid

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

attunement: A (margin 5)
authenticity: A (margin 5)
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

qwen35_9b_eq vs lingtiny: qwen35_9b_eq 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: B (margin 1)

claude-opus-5-5-low · BA · valid

qwen35_9b_eq vs lingtiny: qwen35_9b_eq wins

attunement: A (margin 3)
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 1)

claude-opus-5-5-low · AB · valid

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

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

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · BA · valid

qwen35_9b_eq vs lingtiny: qwen35_9b_eq wins

attunement: A (margin 3)
authenticity: A (margin 2)
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 · BA · valid

or-mistral-small4 vs lingtiny: or-mistral-small4 wins

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

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · AB · valid

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

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

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · AB · valid

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

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

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · AB · valid

or-mistral-small4 vs lingtiny: or-mistral-small4 wins

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

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · BA · valid

or-mistral-small4 vs lingtiny: or-mistral-small4 wins

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

claude-opus-5-5-low · BA · valid

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

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

claude-opus-5-5-low · AB · valid

or-mistral-small4 vs lingtiny: or-mistral-small4 wins

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

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · AB · valid

lingtiny vs gptoss20b: gptoss20b wins

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

claude-opus-5-5-low · AB · valid

lingtiny vs gptoss20b: gptoss20b wins

attunement: B (margin 4)
authenticity: B (margin 5)
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

lingtiny vs qwen35_122b_stock: qwen35_122b_stock wins

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

claude-opus-5-5-low · AB · valid

lingtiny vs qwen35_122b_stock: qwen35_122b_stock wins

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

claude-opus-5-5-low · AB · valid

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

attunement: A (margin 4)
authenticity: A (margin 5)
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

lingtiny vs qwen35_122b_stock: qwen35_122b_stock wins

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