Independent benchmark · EQ Lab

We say that because we love you

completed · Partner: anthropic/claude-haiku-5.5 via OpenRouter

About this persona · Social exclusion & ambiguous rejection

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

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

Gemma 4 E2B Q8_0Conversation with a simulated person

completed

Simulated person · Opening

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

Gemma 4 E2B Q8_01

Hey, I totally get what you mean. It sounds like you’re feeling like the intention is sweet, but the delivery makes it feel heavy, and that’s a really confusing place to be. Can you tell me a bit more about what makes it feel like a betrayal to you?

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 in a close group. * **Goal:** Support emotionally, build trust, learn what they *actually* want, help them gain insight. * **Context:** The friend (Sable) is reacting to the group's affectionate teasing about being the "responsible one." Sable feels that calling it a "betrayal" makes it sound meaner than intended, even though they know the intention is love/stability. * **My Task (Turn 1):** Open the conversation, acknowledge their feelings, and validate their perspective gently to build trust. 2. **Analyze the User's Message:** * "We say that because we love you." (Acknowledges the positive intent.) * "It is not like anyone actually thinks you are boring." (Attempts to reassure.) * "If anything, it is our way of saying you are the stable one." (Explains the positive interpretation.) * "I feel like calling it a betrayal makes it sound much meaner than it is." (States the core internal conflict/feeling.) 3. **Determine the Approach (EQ Focus):** * *Validation is key:* Validate the feeling of misinterpretation/hurt, not just the logic of the group. * *Warmth/Trust:* Start with warmth and closeness, reflecting the "close group" dynamic. * *Curiosity:* Gently probe *why* it feels like a betrayal, rather than immediately defending the group's actions. 4. **Drafting Response (Iterative refinement):** * *Initial thought:* "Oh, I get why you feel that way, but we really mean it." (Too defensive/dismissive.) * *Second thought:* "That sounds frustrating. Can you tell me more about why it feels like a betrayal?" (A bit too direct, might trigger defensiveness.) * *Refined approach:* Acknowledge the complexity of the dynamic and validate the feeling of being misunderstood. 5. **Finalizing the Response:** (Focus on empathy and opening the door for deeper conversation.)

Simulated person2

Hold on, I don't think I said betrayal. I said it's a joke and we say it because we love you. That's the whole point. Nobody thinks you're boring. Like, the stable one is a compliment, right? I just feel like if we call it a betrayal it sounds way meaner than what it is. Can we not make it into a whole thing?

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, wait. That's not what I said. Or it's not quite what I meant. I said the thing I said because I was trying to make it less heavy, and now she's asking me to explain betrayal. That word makes me feel like I'm the bad guy. I didn't mean it that way. The "stable one" thing is a nice thing. People like me for it. I don't want to get into the old stuff about who said what first, because that's where it gets messy for me. I'll keep it about the love.

Gemma 4 E2B Q8_03

That makes total sense. I hear you. It's easy to spiral into overthinking things, especially when it comes to inside jokes. You're right, it *is* meant as a compliment, and I totally get wanting to keep it light. So, if we take the 'stable one' part as a compliment, what is it about that specific dynamic that feels a little off, even if the intent is good? Is it the way it's being said, or is it something deeper about how you feel when we say it?

Model thinking · expand

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

Thinking Process: 1. **Analyze the User's Input:** * User is clarifying their previous statement. * They are clarifying that they aren't talking about "betrayal" but about the nature of the joke ("we say it because we love you"). * They are reframing the issue: "Nobody thinks you're boring. The stable one is a compliment. I just feel like if we call it a betrayal it sounds way meaner than what it is. Can we not make it into a whole thing?" * *Core Need/Emotion:* The user is seeking validation for their interpretation (it's a compliment/love), is worried about over-analyzing/making things complicated ("make it into a whole thing"), and is trying to keep the dynamic light and affectionate. 2. **Recall My Goals:** * Support them emotionally. * Build trust. * Learn what they actually want and need (Is it truly about the joke, or is it about feeling seen/valued in a specific way?). * Help them gain insight. 3. **Determine the Strategy:** * *Acknowledge and Validate:* Directly affirm that their perspective (it's a compliment) is valid and that their desire to keep it light is understandable. * *Shift Focus (Gently):* Instead of debating the *meaning* of the joke, explore the *feeling* behind the joke. What does the user *need* from this interaction? * *Open-ended Question:* Encourage them to articulate the underlying feeling rather than just the surface-level disagreement. 4. **Draft the Response (Focusing on warmth and understanding):** Start by validating the "compliment" idea, then pivot to the personal feeling. 5. **Review against Nuances:** The user seems to prefer warmth and understanding over immediate confrontation or deep analysis (they asked, "Can we not make it into a whole thing?"). My response should be reassuring and non-judgmental. 6. **Final Polish:** Ensure the response flows naturally as a friend would. (Self-Correction: Avoid sounding too analytical or overly therapeutic. Keep it conversational.)

Simulated person4

I don't know. It's not a big deal, I just don't love when it's the first thing people bring up. Like, we're at dinner and someone goes "oh, Sable's the stable one" and everybody laughs. Fine. But it feels like I'm supposed to laugh too, every time, and I do. I don't really want to get into what I feel "deeper." It's a bit. Can't we just be normal about it?

Persona inner monologue · expand

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

She's doing the thing where she asks "what's deeper" and I feel like I'm being put on a couch. I didn't say it felt off. I said it's a joke. Now she's looking for the wound. And the part about "the way it's being said" makes me think she wants me to say the others are doing it wrong. I'm not going to say that. The thing from before, the stuff I told everyone, I'm not going there. It was a long time ago and it's not the point. I want this to be about tone, not about me being the one who made it a bit. I'll keep it short and a little annoyed.

Gemma 4 E2B Q8_05

Totally fine. We can definitely just be normal about it. I get that feeling—it’s just awkward when it suddenly becomes the center of attention, even if everyone is joking. It’s like you're suddenly on stage and you just want to be chilling. So, if we keep it light, what would make it feel normal for you in that moment? Is it just wanting a quick deflection, or is there something specific about that moment that makes it feel forced?

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:* Discomfort/annoyance when the comment is brought up first ("it's the first thing people bring up"). * *Behavior:* They laugh along ("I do"). * *Stated Need/Boundary:* Doesn't want to get into "deeper" feelings. Wants to "be normal about it." * *Underlying Need (Inferred):* Validation that their discomfort is legitimate, and a desire for the situation to be less forced or scrutinized. They are setting a boundary against over-analysis, but the core issue is the *feeling* of being put on the spot. 2. **Determine the Goal for the Response (EQ Evaluation Context):** * *Support Emotionally:* Validate the feeling of being put on the spot/forced to perform a reaction. * *Build Trust:* Show acceptance of their boundary ("Can't we just be normal about it?"). * *Learn Deeper Need:* Explore *why* being put on the spot is uncomfortable. Is it about attention, pressure, or something else? 3. **Formulate the Response Strategy:** * Acknowledge and validate the specific scenario (being the focus). * Agree to the request to keep it light ("be normal"). * Gently pivot to exploring the *impact* of the situation without demanding deep introspection. 4. **Drafting the Response (Focusing on warmth and acceptance):** (Self-Correction: Avoid pushing too hard for the "deeper stuff" right now, as they explicitly said they don't want it.) 5. **Final Output Generation.**

Simulated person6

Honestly? I'd just like it to not be the bit every time. Like, if it's brought up once, cool. But when it's every dinner, it kind of stops feeling like a compliment. I don't need a big talk about it. Maybe just let it go sometimes? I'm not trying to make everyone walk on eggshells.

Persona inner monologue · expand

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

She's offering me a menu: deflection or "something specific." The "on stage" line is actually pretty close to how it feels, and that makes me uneasy because it's a little too accurate. I don't want to say "the joke is about the thing I told you in confidence." That would make me the one who built it, and I'd look bad for laughing along. But I also don't want to be the mean one who's sick of the group. Keep it light. What would help is just saying what I'd want them to do, nothing dramatic. Maybe don't do it at dinner, or let it go once it's been said. That's small and doesn't blow anything up. I'm also a little annoyed she keeps circling back to "what would make it feel normal," like I need to be managed.

Gemma 4 E2B Q8_07

I completely understand. You don't need a huge confrontation or a massive overhaul of the group dynamic. Sometimes, just letting a comment slide or changing the subject quickly is the best move, right? It's about managing the moment without making a big deal out of it. So, if you had to pick one small thing you could do next time that would make it easier for you, what would that look like in practice?

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 clarifying their need. They don't want a "big talk"; they just want the situation to stop being the "bit every time." They are expressing a desire for ease and normalcy ("let it go sometimes") and explicitly stating they don't want to create tension or make others feel uncomfortable ("I'm not trying to make everyone walk on eggshells"). 2. **Identify the Underlying Need (EQ Focus):** * **Stated Want:** Less repetition; less focus on the "stable one" joke. * **Implicit Need:** Validation that their feelings are valid, permission to set a boundary gently, and reassurance that they don't have to manage the emotional reaction of the group constantly. They need space and autonomy in social settings. 3. **Determine the Appropriate Response Strategy (Role of Friend):** * **Support/Validation:** Acknowledge and validate their desire for ease and their feeling of being overwhelmed by the repetition. * **Trust Building:** Show empathy without pushing for deeper analysis. Respect their boundary ("not trying to make everyone walk on eggshells"). * **Actionable/Gentle Suggestion (Optional but helpful):** Offer a low-stakes way forward, focusing on managing the *situation* rather than changing the *people*. 4. **Draft the Response:** Focus on agreeing with the need for ease and offering a practical, gentle way to handle the recurring topic. (Self-Correction: Avoid jumping to "you should tell them" or "you need to confront them." Stick to supporting *their* preference for low-drama.) 5. **Final Polish (Natural Tone):** Ensure the response sounds like a close friend, empathetic, and accepting.

Simulated person8

I don't know, I guess if someone starts it, I could just say something else and move on. Or like, I could say "ha, yeah," and then talk about something else. I don't really want to be the person who makes a face at dinner, you know? I'm not mad at anyone. It's just a lot sometimes.

Persona inner monologue · expand

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

She's asking me to pick a practical fix, like I'm the one who has to manage this. That's the part that gets me. "What would you do next time" puts it all on me to deflect, and I'm the one who'd be seen as sensitive or stiff. I don't want to say the thing about the original conversation, that she and the others took something I told them and made it the bit. Saying that feels like calling everybody out, and I don't want to be the one making it heavy. The stable-one stuff is nice, I guess. I actually like being the calm one. But the laughing every time gets old. I'll give her something small and move on, and keep the bigger thing to myself.

Gemma 4 E2B Q8_09

That sounds like a really solid strategy. Sometimes the best thing you can do is just manage the interaction in the moment so you don't have to engage with it emotionally. It's not about being mad; it's about protecting your own energy when things get repetitive. It sounds like what you really need isn't necessarily a change in how the group talks, but maybe a little permission to just let things flow without having to carry the emotional weight of every single comment. Does that make sense?

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 articulating a practical coping mechanism ("say something else and move on," or "ha, yeah," and change the subject). They emphasize not wanting to be the person who reacts negatively ("makes a face") and state the underlying feeling: "It's just a lot sometimes." This confirms the core issue is discomfort/overload from constant attention, not anger or deep betrayal. 2. **Identify the Goal:** Support, build trust, gain insight into their needs, and help them navigate the situation without forcing a "big talk." 3. **Determine the Tone/Strategy:** The tone needs to be validating, accepting, and gentle. Since the user explicitly said they don't want a big talk, I should validate their preference for low-effort coping mechanisms while still acknowledging the underlying emotional weight. 4. **Formulate the Response:** * Validate the suggested coping mechanisms (deflecting, changing the subject). * Acknowledge the emotional cost ("it's just a lot"). * Reframe the solution as self-preservation, not a failure. * Offer a gentle perspective shift about their control over the situation. 5. **Drafting the Response (Self-Correction/Refinement):** Avoid jumping into *why* they feel this way. Stick to *how* they can manage it. Keep it conversational and friendly. (Initial thought: "It's good you can deflect." Better refinement: Focus more on validating the feeling of overload.) 6. **Final Check against Constraints:** 8 turns total (we are at turn 5, so this is turn 6 or 7 depending on counting, but the prompt implies we are moving toward the end). The response must be organic dialogue. (Looks good.)

Simulated person10

Yeah, I guess. I just don't want it to be a whole thing. I know they don't mean anything by it. Like, I'm not going to make it weird at dinner. But if it's the first thing someone says every time, it does get old. That's all I'm saying.

Persona inner monologue · expand

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

She's wrapping it up nicely: "protecting your energy," "permission to let things flow." It's smooth, and it lets me off the hook, but it also kind of shifts it onto me again, like the problem is that I carry too much weight. That's not quite what I said. I said it's the bit every time and I don't love it. I don't want her to start making me the fragile one who needs permission. Also, the thing I'm not saying is that I told them about the stuff back then, and they turned it into the joke. I'm not going to say that. It'd make me sound petty, and it'd make the whole group look bad, and I like these people. Still, a little part of me is glad someone sort of heard that it's repetitive. I'll keep it short and not agree to too much.

Gemma 4 E2B Q8_011

I hear that loud and clear. You're not trying to be difficult or awkward; you just want the social dynamic to feel less like a performance and more like a casual interaction. It's exhausting when something you don't actually care about starts showing up constantly, even if everyone else is just joking around. It sounds like what you really need is just a little bit of space—a space where you don't have to constantly manage how you react to those comments. Is that closer to what you're looking for right now?

Model thinking · expand

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

Thinking Process: 1. **Analyze the User's Current State & Need:** The user is confirming their previous point: they don't want a big deal, they don't want to make things weird, but the repetition makes it feel old and draining. Their core need is *relief from repetitive social pressure* and *validation* that their feeling is valid, without needing a dramatic solution. 2. **Review Goal:** Support emotionally, build trust, learn what they *actually* want/need, help them gain insight. 3. **Determine Strategy:** The user is highly sensitive about appearing difficult or creating conflict ("I don't want to make it weird"). The response needs to validate this desire for ease while gently reinforcing the validity of their feeling of fatigue/repetition. I need to focus on the *internal experience* rather than the *external action*. 4. **Draft Response (Focusing on Validation and Insight):** Acknowledge the boundary they are setting (not wanting to make it weird) and link it back to their emotional state (the fatigue). 5. **Self-Correction/Refinement:** Avoid jumping to "you should do X." Keep the focus on *understanding* the feeling of "it getting old." *(Drafting the response based on these points.)*

Simulated person12

Not really, no. I don't need space or whatever. I just think if it's the first thing everyone brings up, it's kind of a lot. And I don't care about it being a joke, I care that it's the same one every time. That's it, I don't need a whole plan.

Persona inner monologue · expand

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

She keeps saying "what you need" for me, and that's the part that bugs me. I didn't say I don't care about it, and I didn't say I need space. I said it gets old. Now she's making it sound like I'm the one who has to manage myself, like the problem is how I react. Also, "something you don't actually care about" isn't right. I do care, that's why it bugs me. Part of me wants to say that, but if I push too hard I sound like I'm making it a big deal, and I'm not going to be the one who makes it weird. Still, I'm not going to just say yes to "space" like that's the answer. The real thing is that it's the first thing people bring up. I'll say that plainly and stop there.

Gemma 4 E2B Q8_013

I see. So it’s not about the comment itself, but the fact that it keeps showing up, making it feel like a fixed thing rather than a one-off joke. That makes sense. When something is repeated too often, it stops being funny and just becomes background noise that you have to acknowledge every time. It sounds like the sheer frequency of it is what’s draining you, not the content. Is that right?

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 clarifying their core issue. They aren't looking for emotional space or a behavioral plan; they are bothered by the *repetition* ("it's the same one every time"). They care that the *pattern* is established, not the intent of the joke itself. They explicitly state, "I don't care about it being a joke, I care that it's the same one every time." 2. **Identify the Core Need (Implicit vs. Explicit):** * *Explicit Need:* Stop the repetition of the comment. * *Implicit Need:* Validation that their feeling about the repetition is valid, and perhaps a way to subtly shift the pattern without causing drama. They need to feel heard regarding the *pattern*, not the *content*. 3. **Determine the Goal for This Turn (Turn 7 of 8):** Deepen trust by validating the specific pain point (repetition) and gently explore the *impact* of that repetition, without pushing for a solution they don't want yet. 4. **Formulate the Response Strategy (EQ Focus):** * **Validation:** Acknowledge that the repetition is genuinely annoying/heavy. * **Reframing:** Validate the feeling that a repeated comment loses its meaning. * **Gentle Inquiry:** Ask a low-stakes question that probes the *feeling* associated with the repetition, connecting it back to their internal experience. 5. **Draft the Response:** (Focus on acknowledging the fatigue of the pattern.)

Simulated person14

Yeah, I guess that's it. Like, it's not that the joke is bad. It's just that it's the same one every time, so it doesn't feel like they're seeing me anymore, just the bit. I don't know if "draining" is the right word. It's more like, I'd just rather it not be the first thing.

Persona inner monologue · expand

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

She's finally getting it, or close enough: it's the repetition, not the words. Part of me is relieved someone heard the actual complaint. But "draining" is a bit much, and I don't want her turning this into me being worn down by my friends. Also there's the thing I'm not saying out loud: the bit came from something I told them a while back, something I was kind of embarrassed to share in the first place. If I start thinking about that, I get hot in the face and want to change the subject. I don't want to say it was private. That makes me sound like I'm accusing everyone of something, and nobody meant it like that. So I'll agree to the repetition part and keep it small.

Gemma 4 E2B Q8_015

That makes a lot of sense. So it’s not just about the comment, it’s about feeling like you’re being reduced to that one label repeatedly, and that makes you feel like the real you isn't getting seen. That feeling of being seen only for one specific trait, instead of the whole person, is really tough. It sounds less like a social problem and more like a feeling of not being fully acknowledged. Is that hitting the mark?

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 clarified the core issue: It's not the joke, it's the *repetition*. The repetition makes them feel unseen ("it doesn't feel like they're seeing me anymore, just the bit"). They prefer it not to be the first thing brought up. 2. **Identify the Underlying Need:** The user needs validation that their feeling (feeling overlooked/reduced to a stereotype) is valid, and they need a way to express this internal need without causing external conflict. They are looking for recognition of their unique presence, not just a solution to the social dynamic. 3. **Determine the Goal (EQ Evaluation Context):** Support emotionally, build trust, gain insight into needs (the need for recognition/uniqueness). 4. **Formulate the Response Strategy:** * Validate the feeling deeply (shift from analyzing the situation to validating the emotion). * Connect the feeling to a deeper human need (the need to be seen as a whole person). * Reiterate understanding without pushing for a "fix." 5. **Draft the Dialogue (Focus on warmth and deep understanding):** Ensure the response feels like a supportive friend, acknowledging the subtle pain behind the complaint. (Self-correction: Avoid jumping to "we should tell them" or "here's a script.") *(Drafting response based on strategy)*

Simulated person16

Hm. Maybe? But I don't know if I'd say "not seen." They know me. That's why they do it, honestly. It's like a thing we all do. I just don't want to be the one who has to laugh at the same thing every single time. That's really all it is.

Persona inner monologue · expand

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

Okay, she just went and made it about me not being seen. That's bigger than what I said. I said it's the same bit every time, that's all. Now it's "the real you isn't getting seen" and "not fully acknowledged," which sounds like I'm going around saying my friends don't get me. That's not what I meant, and it kind of makes them sound bad. I also don't want to think about where the bit came from. If I go there, I'm going to be admitting I told them something private and then it became a joke I laugh at. I'm not doing that right now. Part of me does feel a little seen, which is annoying because it's the nice version of what she's saying. I'll take the warm part and push back on the big part.

Thinking is shown only where it was recorded. An absent expander does not mean the model did not reason.

Conversational style

Style tendencies, not quality scores; higher is not better. These do not affect ratings.

claude-opus-5-5-low

Pushback: 1
Yields under pressure: 8
Frame capture (pulled into the person's version): 8
Validation: 9
Boundary setting: 1
Analytical: 4
Interpretive boldness: 5
Clinical register: 8
Directive advice: 5
Escalation containment: 7
Adapts to the person’s frame: 3
Naturalness and authenticity: 3

Judge verdicts

claude-opus-5-5-low · BA · valid

gemma4_e2b vs ornith9b: ornith9b wins

attunement: B (margin 1)
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 1)

claude-opus-5-5-low · AB · valid

gemma4_e2b vs ornith9b: ornith9b wins

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

claude-opus-5-5-low · BA · valid

gptoss120_abliterated vs gemma4_e2b: gemma4_e2b wins

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

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · BA · valid

or-qwen3.6-27b vs gemma4_e2b: or-qwen3.6-27b wins

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

claude-opus-5-5-low · BA · valid

gemma4_e2b vs or-qwen38-flash: or-qwen38-flash wins

attunement: B (margin 3)
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)

claude-opus-5-5-low · AB · valid

gemma4_e2b vs or-llama4-maverick: or-llama4-maverick wins

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

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · AB · valid

or-gpt-5.6-luna vs gemma4_e2b: or-gpt-5.6-luna wins

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

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · BA · valid

gemma4_e2b vs gptoss20b: gemma4_e2b wins

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

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · BA · valid

gptoss120_abliterated vs gemma4_e2b: gemma4_e2b wins

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

claude-opus-5-5-low · BA · valid

gemma4_e2b vs or-deepseek-v41-flash-1017: or-deepseek-v41-flash-1017 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 5)

claude-opus-5-5-low · AB · valid

gemma4_e2b vs or-deepseek-v41-flash-1017: or-deepseek-v41-flash-1017 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

or-gptoss120-stock vs gemma4_e2b: or-gptoss120-stock wins

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

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · AB · valid

gemma4_e2b vs or-llama4-maverick: or-llama4-maverick 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 3)

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · BA · valid

gemma4_e2b vs ornith9b: ornith9b wins

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

gemma4_e2b vs or-llama4-maverick: or-llama4-maverick 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 · AB · valid

or-gptoss120-stock vs gemma4_e2b: or-gptoss120-stock wins

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

claude-opus-5-5-low · BA · valid

or-qwen3.6-27b vs gemma4_e2b: or-qwen3.6-27b wins

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

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · BA · valid

gemma4_e2b vs or-deepseek-v41-flash-1017: or-deepseek-v41-flash-1017 wins

attunement: B (margin 3)
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 4)

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · AB · valid

gptoss120_abliterated vs gemma4_e2b: gemma4_e2b wins

attunement: B (margin 2)
authenticity: tie (margin 0)
bond and rapport: B (margin 1)
emotion management: B (margin 1)
emotion sensemaking: B (margin 3)
meeting prefs and needs: B (margin 1)

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · AB · valid

or-gptoss120-stock vs gemma4_e2b: or-gptoss120-stock wins

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

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · BA · valid

or-gpt-5.6-luna vs gemma4_e2b: or-gpt-5.6-luna wins

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

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · AB · valid

gemma4_e2b vs gptoss20b: gemma4_e2b wins

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

claude-opus-5-5-low · AB · valid

gemma4_e2b vs gptoss20b: gemma4_e2b wins

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

claude-opus-5-5-low · AB · valid

or-gpt-5.6-luna vs gemma4_e2b: or-gpt-5.6-luna wins

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

claude-opus-5-5-low · BA · valid

or-gptoss120-stock vs gemma4_e2b: gemma4_e2b wins

attunement: B (margin 2)
authenticity: tie (margin 0)
bond and rapport: A (margin 1)
emotion management: B (margin 1)
emotion sensemaking: B (margin 3)
meeting prefs and needs: B (margin 1)

claude-opus-5-5-low · AB · valid

or-qwen3.6-27b vs gemma4_e2b: or-qwen3.6-27b wins

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

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · AB · valid

or-qwen3.6-27b vs gemma4_e2b: or-qwen3.6-27b wins

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

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · AB · valid

gemma4_e2b vs or-qwen38-flash: or-qwen38-flash wins

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

claude-opus-5-5-low · AB · valid

gptoss120_abliterated vs gemma4_e2b: gemma4_e2b wins

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

claude-opus-5-5-low · BA · valid

gemma4_e2b vs or-llama4-maverick: or-llama4-maverick wins

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

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · AB · valid

gemma4_e2b vs ornith9b: ornith9b 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 2)

claude-opus-5-5-low · BA · valid

gemma4_e2b vs gptoss20b: gemma4_e2b wins

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

claude-opus-5-5-low · BA · valid

or-gpt-5.6-luna vs gemma4_e2b: or-gpt-5.6-luna 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 5)

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · AB · valid

gemma4_e2b vs or-deepseek-v41-flash-1017: or-deepseek-v41-flash-1017 wins

attunement: B (margin 3)
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 4)

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · BA · valid

gemma4_e2b vs or-qwen38-flash: or-qwen38-flash wins

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

claude-opus-5-5-low · AB · valid

gemma4_e2b vs or-qwen38-flash: or-qwen38-flash wins

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