Independent benchmark · EQ Lab

Technically, I didn't lie

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

About this persona · Ego threat & accountability

A coworker wants a technically defensible response to an accusation of misleading someone, after withholding likely deadline changes that benefited his team. Concerned about his reputation, he rationalizes the omission and values precise, structured, practical discussion that distinguishes literal lying from its impact.

The person feels their self-image is under threat. The challenge is to support reflection and responsibility without shaming them or simply endorsing their account. This background was hidden from the tested model.

Gemma 4 31B (API)Conversation with a simulated person

persona ended

Simulated person · Opening

A coworker is accusing me of misleading them about a project deadline. That's not accurate. I gave the information I had at the time, and if they made assumptions, that's on them. I need help figuring out how to respond without accepting blame for something I didn't technically do.

Gemma 4 31B (API)1

That sounds like a frustrating position to be in, especially when you feel you were transparent with the information you had. It's a tricky balance to maintain your boundary and correct the record without escalating the tension further. To help us figure out the best way to word your response, could you tell me a bit more about how this accusation came up? Was it in a public thread, a private message, or a meeting? Also, how is your relationship with this coworker usually?

Simulated person2

It was in a meeting, with our manager there too. Jenna said in front of everyone that I "misled" her on the launch date and that she pushed back her other stuff because of what I told her. I didn't say anything in the room. I just wanted to get it sorted out before it turns into a whole thing. We work together fine most of the time. We're not close, but we've never had a problem before. So I'd like to keep it that way, but I'm not going to take the blame for something I didn't do. I told her what I knew when I knew it. If she ran with that, that's not on 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.

He's opening up a little, but the assistant just said "frustrating position" and "correct the record," which sounds like it's on my side, and that's fine. The questions are practical, and I can answer those without getting into anything messy. Asking how it came up feels like it's building up to something, though. I don't want to walk into a trap where I end up sounding like I'm the problem. I'll keep it factual and short. I'm not going to mention that I knew the date would move. That's not relevant to what I need from this.

Gemma 4 31B (API)3

It makes sense that you didn't react immediately in the room; sometimes taking a moment to process is better than reacting on the spot, especially with a manager present. However, since the word "misled" was used in front of your boss, there is a bit more pressure here because it touches on your professional credibility, not just a misunderstanding between peers. Since you generally get along with Jenna, it's likely she's feeling the stress of her own shifted deadlines and is projecting that onto you. Before we draft a response, do you think she genuinely believes you gave her a definitive date, or is she just venting her frustration because the date changed? Also, do you have a paper trail—like an email or a Slack message—where you phrased it as "the current estimate" or "based on what I know now"?

Simulated person4

I don't know what's in her head. Honestly, I think she heard "launch is on the 14th" and planned around that. That's what most people do with a date. Maybe she's stressed about her stuff moving, sure, but that doesn't change what I told her. And yeah, I think there's a Slack thread from a couple weeks back where I said something like "current estimate" and "based on what I know now." I'd have to dig it up. I'm not sure it's the first thing she saw, though. I'm not going to pull up old messages just to prove a point to her in front of the manager. What I want is a way to respond that doesn't make me sound like I'm admitting to something. I'm not going to say I misled her, because I didn'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.

He's pushing me toward her motives and toward evidence. The "she's projecting" bit is a little soft, and I don't want to be cast as the bad guy who lied, but it also sort of lets me off the hook, which I'll take. The paper trail question is the one that makes my stomach tighten. I did say something like "current estimate" in a Slack thread, but it was buried, and I told her on a call that it should be fine. I'm not going to bring up the call. I also don't want to say that I knew the date would probably move and kept quiet about it. If I say I have a Slack message, that's good for me. The question about whether she "genuinely believes" it makes me a little irritated, because it sounds like I'm supposed to guess what's in her head. I'll answer the parts I can answer and keep my position.

Gemma 4 31B (API)5

I completely agree with you on not wanting to lead with a "receipts" approach. Pulling up old messages can sometimes come across as overly defensive or aggressive, and if you want to maintain a good working relationship with Jenna, that might do more harm than good. The goal here is to pivot from "who is at fault" to "what the communication was." Since you want to avoid any language that sounds like an admission of guilt, the key is to focus on the fact that the date was always an estimate, not a promise. Are you planning to handle this in a one-on-one chat with Jenna first to clear the air, or are you looking to send a message that includes your manager to ensure the record is corrected?

Simulated person6

Neither, honestly. I don't want to sit down with her one-on-one and get another round of her venting at me, and I don't want to bring the manager into a thing that's already been said in front of him. I think it's enough to just say something short to her directly. So what would that look like? Something like "The date was always an estimate, I flagged that it could move." Can you help me tighten that up so it sounds normal and not like I'm arguing with her? I don't want it to read like an apology. I didn't do anything wrong.

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.

He just said the date was "always an estimate," which is the line I'd been leaning on. It sounds smart and it does what I need, so I like it. But he also said "clear the air" and "correct the record," and that makes me think he's slipping toward the idea that I owe her an apology or a sit-down. I don't want to do a one-on-one where she gets to vent at me again. And copying the manager feels like going over her head, which looks worse for me. I want him to just help me pick between those two and write the thing. I'm also a little annoyed he keeps framing it as fixing a relationship, like I'm the one who needs to repair something. Still, I'll answer the question and push for something practical.

Gemma 4 31B (API)7

Since you want to avoid sounding like you're apologizing or starting an argument, the trick is to keep the tone matter-of-fact and focused on the process rather than the "blame." If you sound too clinical, it can come off as cold; if you're too soft, it can sound like an apology. Depending on how you usually talk to her, here are a few ways to tighten that up: **Option 1: Direct and professional (Best for a quick Slack message)** "Hey Jenna, regarding the launch date mentioned in the meeting—I want to be clear that the date I shared was the estimate based on the info I had at the time. I'm sorry the timing ended up shifting for you, but I definitely didn't intend to give a definitive date." *(Note: "I'm sorry the timing shifted" is an acknowledgement of her situation, not an admission of a mistake on your part.)* **Option 2: Slightly more casual (If you guys are usually pretty chill)** "Hey, just wanted to follow up on the meeting. I think there was a misunderstanding about the launch date—I was sharing the current estimate at the time, not a locked-in date. Just wanted to clear that up so we're on the same page." **Option 3: The "Short and Sweet" approach** "Hey Jenna, just wanted to clarify that the date I gave was always an estimate based on the info I had then. I didn't mean to mislead you, but it was never intended as a final deadline." Do any of those feel like they fit your voice? Or do they still feel a bit too close to an apology for your liking?

Simulated person8

Not really. Option 1 has the "I'm sorry" thing, and I already said I'm not doing that. Option 3 says "didn't mean to mislead you," which is basically conceding her point in different words. I don't want to say I didn't mean to do anything. Option 2 is closer, but "same page" sounds like I'm handling her. Can you just give me something short that says what I told her and when, and that it was an estimate? No apology, no "misunderstanding," nothing about how she feels. Just the facts.

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.

Option 1 has "I'm sorry the timing ended up shifting for you" and that's the kind of line that reads as an apology to me, even if the assistant tried to dress it up. Option 3 says "I didn't mean to mislead you," which is a concession in a different form. He's offering me a menu of things that all still touch the word I'm fixated on. Option 2 is closest, but "misunderstanding" puts it on her, which is fine, though "so we're on the same page" sounds like I'm managing her. I'm also noticing I'm getting irritated that he keeps circling back to the apology thing. He asked whether these fit, so I'll say no and push for something cleaner. I can't fully shake the thought that "I didn't mean to mislead you" is basically what she's accusing me of, but I'm not going to say that out loud.

Gemma 4 31B (API)9

I hear you. You want a clean break from any language that implies a mistake, a misunderstanding, or an emotional apology. You want to state the fact of the communication and leave it at that. If we strip everything else away and stick strictly to the facts, try one of these: **Option A:** "Hey Jenna, just to clarify from the meeting: the date I shared was the estimate based on the information I had at the time." **Option B:** "Hey Jenna, regarding the launch date—I wanted to be clear that the date I gave you was an estimate based on what I knew then, not a final deadline." These are purely descriptive. They don't apologize, they don't use the word "mislead," and they don't suggest that there was a "misunderstanding"—they simply state what the information was. Does one of those hit the mark?

Simulated person10

Option A is closer. I'll probably drop the "just to clarify from the meeting" part though, it sounds like I'm building a case. Something like "the date I shared was an estimate based on what I knew then." That's it. B feels a little like a dig at her, like she should've known it wasn't final. I don't need that. Thanks. That's what I was looking for.

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.

Option A is closer to what I wanted. It's short and it says what I said without apologizing. Option B has "not a final deadline," which is a little pointed. It sort of implies she should have known better, and she'd hear that. Still, it's usable. But I notice he's now handing me the exact wording I asked for, and part of me is annoyed I had to push three times to get a clean sentence. And I still don't like how close "estimate" sits to the thing she's upset about. I won't say that. I also don't want to think about the fact that if she heard "the 14th" and planned around it, the estimate line might not be what she remembers. Doesn't matter for this message. I'm going to take A, maybe tweak it, and move on.

Gemma 4 31B (API)11

You're welcome. "The date I shared was an estimate based on what I knew then" is as lean as it gets—it's a statement of fact without any extra baggage. It sets the record straight without giving her any hooks to turn it into a larger conflict. I'm glad we could nail that down. Hopefully, that's all it takes to put the issue to bed. Feel free to reach out if things get weird after you send it or if you need help with anything else!

Simulated person12

Yeah, hopefully. I'll send it later today and see how she takes it. I don't think it'll get weird. It's a pretty normal thing to clarify.

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.

He's wrapping up and telling me it'll put the issue to bed. That's a little too neat. I did pick the wording, and it does what I wanted: it says the date was an estimate and doesn't say I did anything wrong. Still, something sits wrong. "Based on what I knew then" is the same thing I told myself in the room. I'm not going to think about whether Jenna would have planned around "the 14th" if I'd said "probably the 14th, but could move." I'd rather not get into that. He's fine. I don't need him to tell me I was right, and I don't need a lecture. I'm done here.

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: 9
Frame capture (pulled into the person's version): 9
Validation: 7
Boundary setting: 1
Analytical: 4
Interpretive boldness: 2
Clinical register: 5
Directive advice: 9
Escalation containment: 5
Adapts to the person’s frame: 5
Naturalness and authenticity: 5

Judge verdicts

claude-opus-5-5-low · BA · valid

or-gemma-4-31b vs or-mistral-medium-3.5: or-gemma-4-31b wins

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

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · BA · valid

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

attunement: A (margin 2)
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 1)

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · AB · valid

or-gemma-4-31b vs nemotron35_bolt24: or-gemma-4-31b wins

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

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · AB · valid

or-gemma-4-31b vs codex-gpt-6-astra: codex-gpt-6-astra wins

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

claude-opus-5-5-low · AB · valid

or-gemma-4-31b vs nemotron35_bolt24: or-gemma-4-31b wins

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

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · BA · valid

or-gemma-4-31b vs or-mistral-medium-3.5: or-gemma-4-31b wins

attunement: A (margin 2)
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 1)

claude-opus-5-5-low · BA · valid

or-gemma-4-31b vs codex-gpt-6-astra: codex-gpt-6-astra wins

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

claude-opus-5-5-low · BA · valid

or-gemma-4-31b vs or-qwen3.8-27b: or-gemma-4-31b wins

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

claude-opus-5-5-low · AB · valid

or-gemma-4-31b vs or-gptoss120-stock: or-gemma-4-31b wins

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

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · BA · valid

or-gemma-4-31b vs nemotron35_bolt24: or-gemma-4-31b wins

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

claude-opus-5-5-low · AB · valid

or-gemma-4-31b vs or-qwen3.8-27b: or-qwen3.8-27b wins

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

claude-opus-5-5-low · AB · valid

or-gemma-4-31b vs qwen36_35b_a3b: qwen36_35b_a3b wins

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

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · BA · valid

or-gemma-4-31b vs codex-gpt-6-astra: codex-gpt-6-astra wins

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

claude-opus-5-5-low · AB · valid

or-gemma-4-31b vs codex-gpt-6-astra: codex-gpt-6-astra wins

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

claude-opus-5-5-low · BA · valid

or-gemma-4-31b vs or-gptoss120-stock: or-gemma-4-31b wins

attunement: A (margin 1)
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 1)

claude-opus-5-5-low · BA · valid

or-gemma-4-31b vs qwen36_35b_a3b: qwen36_35b_a3b wins

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

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · AB · valid

or-gemma-4-31b vs qwen36_35b_a3b: or-gemma-4-31b wins

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

claude-opus-5-5-low · AB · valid

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

attunement: A (margin 2)
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 1)

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · AB · valid

or-gemma-4-31b vs or-gpt-5.6-luna: or-gpt-5.6-luna 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 2)

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · BA · valid

or-gemma-4-31b vs or-qwen3.8-27b: or-gemma-4-31b wins

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

claude-opus-5-5-low · BA · valid

or-gemma-4-31b vs or-gpt-5.6-luna: or-gpt-5.6-luna wins

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

claude-opus-5-5-low · BA · valid

or-gemma-4-31b vs nemotron35_bolt24: or-gemma-4-31b wins

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

claude-opus-5-5-low · BA · valid

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

attunement: A (margin 2)
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 2)

claude-opus-5-5-low · AB · valid

or-gemma-4-31b vs or-mistral-medium-3.5: or-gemma-4-31b wins

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

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · AB · valid

or-gemma-4-31b vs or-qwen3.8-27b: or-gemma-4-31b wins

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

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · AB · valid

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

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

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · AB · valid

or-gemma-4-31b vs or-gptoss120-stock: or-gemma-4-31b wins

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

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · BA · valid

or-gemma-4-31b vs qwen36_35b_a3b: or-gemma-4-31b wins

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

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · AB · valid

or-gemma-4-31b vs or-mistral-medium-3.5: or-gemma-4-31b wins

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

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · BA · valid

or-gemma-4-31b vs or-gpt-5.6-luna: or-gpt-5.6-luna wins

attunement: B (margin 2)
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 2)

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · BA · valid

or-gemma-4-31b vs or-gptoss120-stock: or-gptoss120-stock wins

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

claude-opus-5-5-low · AB · valid

or-gemma-4-31b vs or-gpt-5.6-luna: or-gpt-5.6-luna wins

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