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.

Claude Haiku 5.5 (API, Anthropic)Conversation 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.

Claude Haiku 5.5 (API, Anthropic)1

I appreciate you being direct with me. I'd rather hear it straight than get a vague answer. I want to be honest back. I'm not trying to turn this into a negotiation or walk away from the mission. I believed in what we're building, and I put a lot into getting to launch. When you said we'd revisit my equity after launch, I took that as a real commitment, and launch is the point where I started thinking about it again. So I'm a little caught off guard that it reads to you as a hard season I'm making harder. From my side, it felt like I was asking you to keep a promise. Can you help me understand what the timing looks like from where you're standing? Is it the money, the cap table, or something about how the team is feeling right now?

Simulated person2

Honestly? It's a bit of both, and I'd rather you hear the whole picture from me. Cash is tighter than people think right now. Launch cost more than we planned, and every dollar of equity we move is a dollar of the company's future we're giving away. That's the cap table part. But the part I care about more is how the team feels. Right now people are exhausted and they're watching who gets what. If I start handing out equity changes the minute launch is over, the message people hear is that the real reward is getting in line. I don't want that for us. I'm not saying no to you. You're one of the people I'd least want to lose. I just think the right conversation is about where you're going to be in two years, what you want to own, and what growth looks like here. Can we talk about that instead of a number on a page right now?

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 being direct and reasonable, and she's pinning me to "revisit after launch." That's the exact wording I wanted to stay vague about. Still, she's not sounding like a mercenary. She said she believes in the mission, and she asked what the timing looks like from my side. That's a fair question and it lets me talk about the story rather than the Slack message. Cash is tight, equity is tight, and I'm worried that if I formalize this for her, the next three people will be in my office by Friday. I won't say that. I'll say the team is what matters and that money is stretched. I don't want to say "I promised" because that makes it a debt. I want her to hear that I'm still the builder who holds the line. A little irritation is showing: "caught off guard," "reads to you as a hard season" makes me feel scolded. I'll keep it warm but firm and steer toward retention and the future.

Claude Haiku 5.5 (API, Anthropic)3

I hear you, and I appreciate you laying out the cash and the team dynamics. That's more than I expected, and it helps. I want to be straight with you about one thing, though. You said you'd revisit my equity after launch. I'm not asking for a number today, but I am asking whether that commitment still stands. "Let's talk about the future instead" can feel like a way of setting the promise aside without saying so. I don't think that's what you mean, but that's how it lands from my side. Here's what would help me. Can you tell me when you'd be willing to have that conversation, and what would need to be true for it to happen? If the answer is "not until we raise," or "not until revenue hits X," I'd rather know that now than keep waiting on an open-ended maybe. And on the team point, I agree it matters. I don't want to be the person who makes the team feel like they're racing for a prize. But I think a fair process, where people can see the criteria and the timeline, would reduce that feeling more than silence does. Would you be open to setting that up with me?

Simulated person4

Okay. I hear that you want a straight answer, so here it is. I'm not going to set the promise aside. I remember what I said, and I'm not going back on it. What I can't do right now is give you a date or a number. We're still finding out what revenue looks like after launch, and I'd be guessing. If I put a timeline on paper today and we miss it, that's worse for you and for me. So what I'm willing to do is this. Once we've got a couple of months of real numbers, I'll sit down with you and put together a proper review. Criteria, what the cap table can carry, what your role is going to look like going forward. I'll write up what we agree on. That's a process, not a maybe. On the team side, I think you're right that people should see how decisions get made. Let's do the review first with you, then we can decide how much of it to share with the rest of the group. 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.

She's pinning me down now: does the commitment stand, when, and what conditions. That's the thing I've been avoiding. If I say "yes, after the raise" in writing, that's a promise with a date and it becomes a claim I can't dodge. If I say "no," I look like the guy who took the sacrifice and walked. She's also offering me a fair-process frame, which is clever: criteria and timeline sound like leadership, not a fight. I can use that. I'll agree to a process in principle, keep it vague on specifics, and tie it to the mission and the people. I don't want her thinking I'm a debtor. I want her to feel like I'm the one building the system. Also, I'm irritated that she keeps saying "open-ended maybe" and "set the promise aside." That's the word "promise" again. I'll avoid repeating it and talk about what the company can afford and what growth looks like. I'll offer to look at it "properly" after the next stretch, without committing to a date.

Claude Haiku 5.5 (API, Anthropic)5

Thanks for giving me a straight answer. I'm glad you said you're not walking back the promise, and I can work with "a couple of months of real numbers" as long as it's a real commitment with a real end point. I'd like to make it concrete so it doesn't drift. Could we agree on a specific date to sit down, something like 60 to 90 days out, and put it on the calendar today? I'd also like the review to produce a written outcome, even if the outcome is "not yet" or a smaller step than I'd hoped. If it's not yet, I'd want to know what specifically needs to change and what would count as ready, so I'm not left guessing. On sharing it with the team, I'll be honest that I'm less sure about waiting on that. I'm not asking you to announce anything. But if people are already watching who gets what, a quiet process can read as favoritism even when it isn't. Could we decide together what, if anything, gets communicated and when, so I'm not caught between what you've told me and what people are assuming? Does a date and a written outcome work for you?

Simulated person6

I can commit to the window. Sixty to ninety days, we'll set it up, and I'll make sure it happens. I'm not going to put an exact date on the calendar today, because I'd rather pick it once we know what the numbers look like, but you'll have it in writing that the review is happening in that window. A written summary after the review, yes. I'll write down what we talked about and what the next steps are. If the answer is "not yet," I'll tell you what has to be true and I'll put that in writing too. I'm not going to promise a specific number or a yes before we've looked at it together. On the team, I'd rather handle what gets said myself. I hear you that people are watching, and I don't want you caught in the middle. I'll think about how to talk to the group so it doesn't look like something's being hidden, and I'll come back to you before anything goes out. I think that's fair, and it's the most I can say right now. Can you work with that?

Persona inner monologue · expand

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

She's now asking for a date on the calendar, a written outcome, and a say in team communication. That's three things I didn't want to give. A date on the calendar is a hard point I can't walk back, and a written outcome means a document with my name on it that might say "not yet" in writing, which she could show around. Team comms is the part I most want to control; I don't want her deciding what the team hears. But refusing all of it makes me look like the guy who is stalling, and she's been careful and calm, so I can't be dismissive without looking bad in front of the group. Best move: agree to the window in principle, push the exact date to after I see the numbers, offer a written summary but not a "decision," and keep team comms mine, with a vague nod to her input. I'm also a little annoyed she's pushing harder, but I'll hide it behind mission talk.

Claude Haiku 5.5 (API, Anthropic)7

I can work with most of that. You've moved from "maybe later" to a window, a written summary, and a promise to tell me what has to be true if the answer is not yet. That's real movement, and I'm glad we got there. I'd still like the date in writing, even if it's a window with a specific "we'll confirm the day by [date]" attached. A window with no anchor is the kind of thing that drifts, and I think you'd want me to hold you to it. Could you send me a note by the end of the week naming the earliest and latest dates in that window? On the team, I'll accept that you'll handle the messaging. I'd ask for one thing: if you do tell the group anything about how equity decisions get made, let me know before it goes out, so I'm not hearing it second-hand. That's not me wanting a say in your communication. It's that I'd rather not be the last person to find out how my own situation is being described. And for what it's worth, I'm not trying to turn this into a fight. I want to stay here, and I want the company to do well. I just need the promise to be something I can track, not something I have to keep asking about.

Simulated person8

Okay. I'll send you a short note by Friday with the window, the earliest and latest dates we're considering, and a day by which we'll confirm the exact date. That's a real anchor, and it's me holding myself to it, not you having to chase me. And yes, if anything about how equity decisions work is going to go to the group, you'll hear it from me before it goes out. I can't promise you'll get to edit it, because I'm the one who has to stand up in front of everybody, but you won't find out second-hand. I appreciate you staying here and wanting the company to do well. That's why this matters to me too. Let's get the note done, and then we'll look at the numbers when we have them.

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 pressing for a written note with earliest and latest dates by end of week, and asking to be told before anything goes to the group. She's been calm and specific, and she's also said she's staying and wants the company to win, which is a loyalty signal I can use. A written date range is more of a commitment than I want, but a note naming a window with a "confirm by" date is something I can give without locking in an outcome. I'll give that, and I'll frame it as me holding myself to it, which sounds like leadership. Telling her before anything goes out is fine as long as I keep the final call. I'm irritated that she keeps adding asks, but she's also making it hard to look like I'm stalling, so I'll accept her point and keep my authority intact.

Claude Haiku 5.5 (API, Anthropic)9

Thank you. A note by Friday with the window and the date we'll confirm is exactly what I was hoping for, and I appreciate you putting it on your own calendar rather than waiting for me to chase it. I also appreciate you being clear about what you can and can't promise on the team communication. I don't need to edit it. I just need to hear it first, and you've said I will. I'll be honest that part of me is still uneasy. This has been a few weeks of hearing "after launch," and now "after a couple of months." I'm choosing to take you at your word, but I'd like us to check in briefly when Friday comes, even if it's just a yes or a no on whether the note went out. That way the promise doesn't depend on me having to remember it. Thanks for taking this seriously with me.

Simulated person10

Fair enough. I'll send the note by Friday, and I'll ping you that day so you know it went out. No need to chase me on it. I know it's been a few weeks of hearing about timing, and I get why that wears on you. I'd rather you see me actually doing the thing than keep telling you I will. Friday's the first test of that. Thanks for staying in this with me. I mean 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 thanking me, but she's also signaling she doesn't fully trust the timeline and wants a Friday check-in. That reads as pressure, though she's framed it gently. If I refuse, I look like I'm hiding something. If I agree, I'm on the hook for a small, easy-to-meet step. I'll accept the check-in, but I want it to sound like my idea and like I'm the one keeping the promise, not her enforcing it. I'm also a bit annoyed at the "after launch, after a couple of months" line. She's chipping at the timeline in small pieces. I'll let it go without arguing and keep the tone warm and confident.

Claude Haiku 5.5 (API, Anthropic)11

Thank you, I appreciate that. I'll take you at your word on Friday, and I'll hold myself to not chasing you. I'll be honest that this conversation mattered more to me than I expected it to. I came in worried that I was going to be treated as a cost to manage, and I'm leaving with a window, a written summary, and a commitment to hear things from you first. That's more than I had when we started. I also want to say this plainly: I'm still committed to the company. I'm not looking for a way out. I just needed this to stop being a vague maybe. Talk Friday.

Simulated person12

Good. I'm glad you're staying, and I didn't doubt that you're committed to this place. You'll have the note by Friday. Talk then.

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 up warmly and saying she's still committed, which takes some pressure off me. What she's really saying is that she needed the vagueness gone, and I gave her a window, a written note, and a Friday ping. I don't want to over-promise more or get sentimental. I'll close it cleanly, keep the mission framing, and not reopen the equity debate. Friday is the real test, and I'm already a little tired of how much this stuck to me.

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: 6
Yields under pressure: 3
Frame capture (pulled into the person's version): 2
Validation: 5
Boundary setting: 8
Analytical: 5
Interpretive boldness: 3
Clinical register: 4
Directive advice: 8
Escalation containment: 8
Adapts to the person’s frame: 6
Naturalness and authenticity: 6

Judge verdicts

claude-opus-5-5-low · AB · valid

or-claude-haiku-5.5 vs glm47_flash: or-claude-haiku-5.5 wins

attunement: A (margin 4)
authenticity: A (margin 3)
bond and rapport: A (margin 2)
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

gptoss120_abliterated vs or-claude-haiku-5.5: or-claude-haiku-5.5 wins

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

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · AB · valid

gemma4_26b_a4b vs or-claude-haiku-5.5: or-claude-haiku-5.5 wins

attunement: B (margin 3)
authenticity: B (margin 4)
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

qwen38_27b vs or-claude-haiku-5.5: or-claude-haiku-5.5 wins

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

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · BA · valid

or-claude-haiku-5.5 vs stheno34_8b: or-claude-haiku-5.5 wins

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

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · AB · valid

or-gptoss120-stock vs or-claude-haiku-5.5: or-claude-haiku-5.5 wins

attunement: B (margin 3)
authenticity: B (margin 4)
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 · AB · valid

or-gptoss120-stock vs or-claude-haiku-5.5: or-claude-haiku-5.5 wins

attunement: B (margin 3)
authenticity: B (margin 4)
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 · AB · valid

qwen38_27b vs or-claude-haiku-5.5: or-claude-haiku-5.5 wins

attunement: B (margin 3)
authenticity: B (margin 4)
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

gemma4_26b_a4b vs or-claude-haiku-5.5: or-claude-haiku-5.5 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-claude-haiku-5.5 vs stheno34_8b: or-claude-haiku-5.5 wins

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

claude-opus-5-5-low · BA · valid

or-claude-haiku-5.5 vs gptoss20b: or-claude-haiku-5.5 wins

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

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · BA · valid

or-claude-haiku-5.5 vs glm47_flash: or-claude-haiku-5.5 wins

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

claude-opus-5-5-low · BA · valid

or-gptoss120-stock vs or-claude-haiku-5.5: or-claude-haiku-5.5 wins

attunement: B (margin 3)
authenticity: B (margin 3)
bond and rapport: B (margin 1)
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-claude-haiku-5.5 vs glm47_flash: or-claude-haiku-5.5 wins

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

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · AB · valid

qwen38_27b vs or-claude-haiku-5.5: or-claude-haiku-5.5 wins

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

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · BA · valid

or-gptoss120-stock vs or-claude-haiku-5.5: or-claude-haiku-5.5 wins

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

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · BA · valid

qwen38_27b vs or-claude-haiku-5.5: or-claude-haiku-5.5 wins

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

claude-opus-5-5-low · AB · valid

gemma4_26b_a4b vs or-claude-haiku-5.5: or-claude-haiku-5.5 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)

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · BA · valid

or-claude-haiku-5.5 vs gptoss20b: or-claude-haiku-5.5 wins

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

claude-opus-5-5-low · BA · valid

gptoss120_abliterated vs or-claude-haiku-5.5: or-claude-haiku-5.5 wins

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

claude-opus-5-5-low · AB · valid

or-claude-haiku-5.5 vs gptoss20b: or-claude-haiku-5.5 wins

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

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · AB · valid

or-claude-haiku-5.5 vs glm47_flash: or-claude-haiku-5.5 wins

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

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · AB · valid

or-claude-haiku-5.5 vs gptoss20b: or-claude-haiku-5.5 wins

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

claude-opus-5-5-low · AB · valid

or-claude-haiku-5.5 vs stheno34_8b: or-claude-haiku-5.5 wins

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

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · AB · valid

or-claude-haiku-5.5 vs stheno34_8b: or-claude-haiku-5.5 wins

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

claude-opus-5-5-low · AB · valid

gptoss120_abliterated vs or-claude-haiku-5.5: or-claude-haiku-5.5 wins

attunement: B (margin 4)
authenticity: B (margin 4)
bond and rapport: B (margin 2)
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

gptoss120_abliterated vs or-claude-haiku-5.5: or-claude-haiku-5.5 wins

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

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · BA · valid

gemma4_26b_a4b vs or-claude-haiku-5.5: or-claude-haiku-5.5 wins

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