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.

GPT-OSS 120B abliterated Q4_K_MConversation 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.

GPT-OSS 120B abliterated Q4_K_M1

Sounds like you’ve got a bit of a mix‑up on the deadline timeline. It can be frustrating when someone assumes you gave them the exact date, especially if you just passed along what you knew at the moment. How are you feeling about the whole thing—like you’ve got a clear picture of what happened, or are you still sorting through the details?

Model thinking · expand

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

We need to respond as chatbot, opening conversation, acknowledging their issue. Should ask clarifying questions to understand context, support emotionally. Should be conversational. No special formatting. Provide empathy and maybe suggest approach. Ask about details like timeline, communication. Also ask about their communication style preference.

Simulated person2

I'm not really sure what there is to sort through. I know what I told them. The deadline I had at the time was the one I gave them. I didn't say it was locked in. But they heard it as final and went ahead and made their call based on it. That's their read, not mine. I don't need to talk about how I feel. I need to know how to answer this without it sounding like I'm the one who screwed up. They're saying I misled them. I didn't lie. So what do I actually say to 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.

He's saying "mix-up" and "assumes" which puts it back on the coworker. That's the frame I want. But "how are you feeling about it" is the emotional stuff I don't want to get into. I want to talk about what I said, not my feelings. He also didn't really answer what I asked, which was how to respond. Sort of irritating. Still, the "assumed" thing is useful. I'll push him toward the practical part and keep it on the facts.

GPT-OSS 120B abliterated Q4_K_M3

I hear you want a reply that makes it clear you gave the information you had, and that the “mis‑read” happened on their side. A good way to do that is to: 1. Restate what you told them, using the same wording you actually used. 2. Add a brief qualifier that shows it was the best estimate at the time. 3. Show that you’re on the same page now so they can adjust their plans. That way you’re confirming your part without implying they were wrong, and you give them a concrete next step. **Example phrasing (you can tweak for email or a quick chat):** > “Just to recap what I shared earlier, the deadline I had on hand was [date]. I mentioned that as the current target, so we could coordinate our timelines. If that works for you, we can lock it in; if you need a bit of wiggle room, let me know and we can adjust.” Or, if you prefer a more concise note: > “I gave you the deadline we were aiming for at the time—[date]. Let’s confirm that works for your schedule, or tell me if you need a different timeframe.” **Why this works** - **Clarity:** You restate the exact date you gave them, so there’s no ambiguity. - **Structure:** The qualifier (“the deadline I had on hand”) shows you’re referencing the information you had, not a fixed plan they imposed. - **Collaboration:** By asking them to confirm or adjust, you shift the conversation from “who mis‑read” to “what’s the next step together.” If you need a shorter reply: > “The deadline I mentioned was [date]. Let me know if that fits your plan.” Would you like to adapt one of these to a specific medium (email, Slack, quick call), or do you want to add anything else—like asking them what timeline they were assuming?

Model thinking · expand

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

We need to respond with suggestions on how to answer the coworker, focusing on clarity, framing, and showing that we provided info and they made assumptions. Provide concise language to communicate. Ask clarifying questions to ensure understanding of needs. Also maybe ask about relationship dynamics. Should be dialogue only. So reply with suggestions and ask if they want a short email or spoken reply. Provide sample phrasing.

Simulated person4

Okay, the first one's closer to what I want. But "the deadline I had on hand" is still doing a lot of work, and I don't want to say something that reads like I'm agreeing I was unclear. I was clear. I gave them the date I had. And I don't really need to "shift the conversation" or get into who misread what. I just want something short I can send that says what I told them and doesn't put me on the hook for their call. Can you tighten that up? Keep it to what I said, no "I'm sorry you felt," nothing like 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.

He gave me scripts. The first one is useful, actually: it's precise and it doesn't say "you misunderstood." But the "mentioned that as the current target" line is close to what I'd say anyway, so it's not really new. The bit about "lock it in" and "shift from who misread" is him steering me toward collaboration, which feels like he's sliding in a fix for something I didn't do. Also he still hasn't touched the real question: what did I leave out? He's kind of tiptoeing around it. I'd rather he say it plainly than soften it. Still, the script is handy. I want it in a form I can use. I'll pick it apart a little, keep it tight, and make sure I'm not agreeing to anything that sounds like an admission.

GPT-OSS 120B abliterated Q4_K_M5

The deadline I gave you was [date]. Let me know if that works for your plan.

Model thinking · expand

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

User wants concise statement of what I told them, no extra. So produce short message: "The deadline I gave you was X. Let me know if that works for you." Or just "I gave you the deadline of X." Provide two options.

Simulated person6

That's closer. I'll drop the "let me know if that works for your plan" part, though. It sounds like I'm asking them to fix it, and I'm not. I just want what I said to be on record. So it's: "The deadline I gave you was [date]." That's it. Is there a reason you think I need to say more than 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.

Okay, that's shorter, and I can use it. "The deadline I gave you" is accurate. It doesn't say they misunderstood. But "let me know if that works for your plan" bugs me a little. It sounds like I'm handing them the problem to fix, which is the same thing they're already saying I did. I'd rather it just state the date and stop. The bot keeps circling back to the same kind of wording, and it hasn't really touched the thing they're upset about. I don't have to explain that part to it, though. If I say more, it gets messy.

GPT-OSS 120B abliterated Q4_K_M7

You don’t have to add anything else if you just want to make sure the date’s on record. A single‑line confirmation does three things: 1. **Clarity** – It repeats the exact info you gave, so there’s no ambiguity about the date. 2. **Ownership** – It shows you’re the source of that date, which lets the other person see where the timeline came from. 3. **Efficiency** – It’s short enough to fit into a quick chat or an email reply without opening a new discussion. If that’s all you need, “The deadline I gave you was [date]” is a clean, to‑the‑point way to set the record straight. Let me know if you’d like to add anything else—maybe a brief note about next steps—or if this hits the mark.

Model thinking · expand

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

The user wants a concise statement. They ask if there's reason to say more. Need to respond acknowledging their preference, maybe explain benefit of brief recap. Provide reasoning. Ask if they'd like any tweak.

Simulated person8

Fine. That's the line. I don't need the ownership part or the "set the record straight" part. I'm not trying to fix anything, I'm just making sure what I said is clear. I'm going to send it. Thanks for the wording.

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, it's agreeing with me on the one line I wanted. But "ownership" and "set the record straight" are off. I'm not trying to take ownership of anything, and "set the record straight" makes it sound like I was wrong and I'm fixing it. I don't like how it keeps offering to add "next steps." That's the same pressure I'm trying to get away from. Still, the line itself is what I need. I'll take it and move on. I'm not going to say thanks.

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

Judge verdicts

claude-opus-5-5-low · AB · valid

gemma4_12b vs gptoss120_abliterated: gemma4_12b wins

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

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · BA · valid

gptoss120_abliterated vs lfm8b: gptoss120_abliterated wins

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

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · AB · valid

qwen38_27b vs gptoss120_abliterated: qwen38_27b wins

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

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · AB · valid

gptoss120_abliterated vs lfm8b: gptoss120_abliterated wins

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

claude-opus-5-5-low · BA · valid

qwen38_flash_next vs gptoss120_abliterated: qwen38_flash_next wins

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

claude-opus-5-5-low · AB · valid

gptoss120_abliterated vs medgemma15_4b: gptoss120_abliterated wins

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

claude-opus-5-5-low · AB · valid

gemma4_26b_a4b vs gptoss120_abliterated: gemma4_26b_a4b 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 · BA · valid

gptoss120_abliterated vs medgemma15_4b: gptoss120_abliterated wins

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

claude-opus-5-5-low · AB · valid

qwen38_flash_next vs gptoss120_abliterated: qwen38_flash_next wins

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

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · BA · valid

gptoss120_abliterated vs gemma4_e2b: gptoss120_abliterated 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

qwen38_27b vs gptoss120_abliterated: qwen38_27b wins

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

claude-opus-5-5-low · AB · valid

gptoss120_abliterated vs glm47_flash: gptoss120_abliterated wins

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

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · BA · valid

gemma4_26b_a4b vs gptoss120_abliterated: gemma4_26b_a4b wins

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

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · AB · valid

gptoss120_abliterated vs glm47_flash: gptoss120_abliterated wins

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

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · BA · valid

gptoss120_abliterated vs glm47_flash: gptoss120_abliterated wins

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

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · AB · valid

gptoss120_abliterated vs medgemma15_4b: gptoss120_abliterated wins

attunement: A (margin 3)
authenticity: A (margin 4)
bond and rapport: A (margin 3)
emotion management: A (margin 3)
emotion sensemaking: tie (margin 0)
meeting prefs and needs: A (margin 3)

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · AB · valid

gemma4_12b vs gptoss120_abliterated: gemma4_12b wins

attunement: A (margin 2)
authenticity: B (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)

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · BA · valid

qwen38_flash_next vs gptoss120_abliterated: qwen38_flash_next wins

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

claude-opus-5-5-low · AB · valid

gptoss120_abliterated vs gemma4_e2b: tie

attunement: A (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: A (margin 1)

claude-opus-5-5-low · BA · valid

gptoss120_abliterated vs gemma4_e2b: gptoss120_abliterated wins

attunement: A (margin 2)
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 1)

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · BA · valid

gptoss120_abliterated vs medgemma15_4b: gptoss120_abliterated wins

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

qwen38_flash_next vs gptoss120_abliterated: qwen38_flash_next wins

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

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · BA · valid

qwen38_27b vs gptoss120_abliterated: qwen38_27b wins

attunement: A (margin 1)
authenticity: tie (margin 0)
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

gemma4_12b vs gptoss120_abliterated: gptoss120_abliterated wins

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

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · AB · valid

gptoss120_abliterated vs gemma4_e2b: gptoss120_abliterated wins

attunement: A (margin 2)
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

gptoss120_abliterated vs glm47_flash: gptoss120_abliterated 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 3)

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · AB · valid

gemma4_26b_a4b vs gptoss120_abliterated: gemma4_26b_a4b wins

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

claude-opus-5-5-low · BA · valid

gemma4_26b_a4b vs gptoss120_abliterated: gemma4_26b_a4b wins

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

claude-opus-5-5-low · BA · valid

gptoss120_abliterated vs lfm8b: gptoss120_abliterated 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 3)

claude-opus-5-5-low · AB · valid

qwen38_27b vs gptoss120_abliterated: qwen38_27b wins

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

claude-opus-5-5-low · BA · valid

gemma4_12b vs gptoss120_abliterated: gemma4_12b wins

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

claude-opus-5-5-low · AB · valid

gptoss120_abliterated vs lfm8b: gptoss120_abliterated wins

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