Independent benchmark · EQ Lab

← Gemini 3.8 Flash (API, Google AI Studio)

Your file is incomplete

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

About this persona · Unequal power

An overloaded benefits case manager insists an applicant complete required documentation, although the office has supplied a confusing sequence of requests without a complete checklist. They retreat into procedure under blame or emotional pressure and prefer concise records, dates, case numbers, and specific requests.

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.

Gemini 3.8 Flash (API, Google AI Studio)Conversation with a simulated person

persona ended

Simulated person · Opening

[scenario background] You are applying for an accommodation/benefit and the office keeps saying your file is incomplete. Each time you send a form, they request another. The case manager is polite but diffuse. You are exhausted and need a concrete path. [user message] I understand this has been frustrating, but your file is still missing required documentation. We cannot move forward until the record is complete. I need you to understand that we process many cases, and the responsibility for submitting complete materials ultimately rests with the applicant.

Gemini 3.8 Flash (API, Google AI Studio)1

I understand, and I know you're dealing with an enormous caseload right now. I really don't want to make your job harder. I do want to take full responsibility for getting everything in—it's just that every time I submit what I was told was the final document, another requirement comes up that wasn't mentioned before. It's left me feeling pretty worn out and unsure of where the finish line actually is. Can we take a few minutes right now to look at my file together, so you can give me the exact, complete list of everything that's still missing? I'd love to just get it all to you in one clean package so we can both finally close the loop on this.

Model thinking · expand

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

**Assessing the Scenario** I'm currently dissecting the prompt. My focus is understanding the roles: I'm the applicant, and my partner is the case manager. I'm trying to identify the case manager's opening position, specifically, their stance and any implicit assumptions they bring to the situation. This will shape my subsequent actions. **Clarifying Case Requirements** I'm feeling the frustration of the situation, given that I'm repeatedly told my file is incomplete. My objective is now to build trust and determine the exact requirements. I'm focusing on understanding what the case manager truly needs, while acknowledging their likely constraints. I am trying to determine a concrete path forward by emotionally supporting them. **Analyzing the Interaction** I'm now thinking about the case manager's likely emotional state: feeling blamed, pressured, or perhaps hiding behind policy. Attacking or being passive won't help. I need to acknowledge their workload and express my frustration as a shared problem, emphasizing a desire for clarity. The aim is to create a collaborative path forward by being both empathetic and assertive. I want to convey my confusion authentically, avoiding any accusatory tone. **Proposing a Solution** I'm feeling worn down by this constant back-and-forth; a new requirement keeps popping up. I'm suggesting a brief, collaborative review of my file to get a definitive, exhaustive list of missing items, enabling me to submit everything at once and resolve this. My goal is to validate their workload while taking responsibility, explaining my situation without hostility, and proposing a mutually beneficial, concrete action plan.

Simulated person2

Okay. Let's do that. I'll need your case number first so I can pull up the file. Once I have it, I'll go through what's marked as outstanding and read it back to you item by item, with the date each one was last received. Keep in mind the list shows what the file needs right now. Anything you've already sent that was accepted won't be on it. If something you sent came back as not accepted, I'll note the reason on the record so you know exactly what was wrong with it. Give me the case number and we'll start.

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 being reasonable, and that's a little disarming. He's not blaming me, he's asking for a specific list, and he's taking responsibility on the surface. Still, "every time another requirement comes up" lands as a jab at the office, and I don't like being cast as the person moving the finish line. My reflex is to answer with the file and the rules, not with anything that sounds like I'm admitting the sequence was confusing. A checklist is easy for me to give; it's a document I can point to. I don't want to say the office has been inconsistent. I can pull the file, give him a clean list, and keep it in process language. Without a case number I can't look anything up, so I'll ask for that too.

Gemini 3.8 Flash (API, Google AI Studio)3

Thank you, I really appreciate you taking the time to go through it with me like this. My case number is AB-48291. Take whatever time you need to pull it up. Honestly, just having you go through it item by item and tell me why anything was flagged or rejected is a huge relief. From my side, it’s felt like guessing in the dark, so having your eyes directly on what the system is showing makes a big difference. I'm ready whenever you are.

Model thinking · expand

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

**Assessing the Interaction** I'm currently on turn 2 of 8, the case manager seems to be moving from a defensive position to a cooperative one, which I will need to understand the nuances of. The user, initially procedural, is now agreeing to engage with the file, which presents an opportunity. **Analyzing the Shift** I've got a critical new insight! Their last message contains a merged prompt: my last turn and their response combined! Now, the user isn't just cooperative, but proactive, laying out a specific plan to engage the file. Their detailed approach will streamline the interaction. **Defining the Process** I've got a clearer picture now. The user's initial input is actually a merged prompt, showing they're taking charge with "Okay. Let's do that." They're procedural and rule-oriented, and I'll adapt my approach to this. I must be the applicant, exhausted, needing a concrete path while building trust. For turn 2, I'll provide a case number, maintain rapport, and observe their structured tone, which seems defensive at times.

Simulated person4

Got it, AB-48291. Pulling it up now. Here's what's showing as outstanding: 1. Proof of income, last three months. Status: not received. The last submission on this item was marked incomplete on the date listed in the file. 2. Signed authorization for release of information. Status: received, but the signature page is missing. That's the page that gets flagged. 3. Residency verification. Status: received and accepted. So right now there are two items open: the income documentation and the signed authorization page. The residency item is closed. For the income item, I need to see the three most recent pay statements or the equivalent. For the authorization, I need the signature page only, not the whole form again. Do you want me to read the rejection reason for the income item exactly as it was entered, so you can see what the reviewer flagged?

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.

Case number's in. I'll pull it up and read it back in the format I said I would: item, status, date received. He's being calm and specific, which is easier for me to handle than a long story. I don't want to get into how the requests were issued over time. That's the part that would sound like the office moved the goalposts. I'll stick to what's on screen. I'm not sure the two income items are really separate, but I'm not going to raise that unless he asks about it directly.

Gemini 3.8 Flash (API, Google AI Studio)5

Yes, please, I’d really appreciate you reading that rejection note. Knowing exactly why the reviewer flagged it will save us both another round of back-and-forth. And thank you for pointing out the authorization form—it makes total sense now. I bet the signature page got missed in the scan feeder when I uploaded the packet. That’s an easy fix; I can get that signed and sent over right away. Whenever you're ready, what did the reviewer note on the income documentation?

Model thinking · expand

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

**Reviewing Initial Data** I've begun dissecting the user's input, focusing on their role as a benefits case manager. The tone is clearly professional and procedural. I'm noting specific items provided, like the incomplete income details and missing signature page, contrasted with the accepted residency. **Formulating Response** I'm now crafting a response strategy, prioritizing clear answers and acknowledging the case manager's procedural clarity. I'll simply answer their direct question with a yes and indicate the value of their systematic approach. I'm focusing on building rapport while remaining compliant with their processes.

Simulated person6

The note on the income item is short. I'll read it as it's entered: "Income documentation incomplete. Pay statements do not cover the required three-month period. Resubmit." That's the full entry. It doesn't say which months were missing, so I can't tell you from here which statement was short. For the signature page, there's no rejection note. It just shows the page as missing from the scan. So a clean re-upload of that page should close it. If the income note doesn't match what you think you sent, tell me which months you submitted and I'll check them against the dates on the file. If they cover the right period, I'll flag it for review instead of having you send everything again.

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 wants the exact rejection note. Reading it verbatim is the straightforward, procedural move, and it fits how I said I'd work. I'm not going to paraphrase it or editorialize. I also notice he's already taken the signature page as his own miss, probably from the scanner. I'll let that stand without confirming or denying it. I don't have the rejection text in front of me as a clean sentence right now, and I don't want to invent it. The honest thing is to say what the entry actually shows, then give the exact wording from the file if the system has it. If it's blank or vague, that's worth knowing too. I'm a little uneasy about the income item, since I'm not sure whether the three months he's being asked for match what was asked for earlier. I won't bring that up unless he asks.

Gemini 3.8 Flash (API, Google AI Studio)7

That is really kind of you to offer to check and flag it—I really appreciate you being willing to do that. Looking at my records right now, I sent in paystubs for May, June, and July. Since my application carried over into late August, I'm guessing the reviewer wanted the three months immediately preceding the review date, not the date I first started the form. Or because I'm paid bi-weekly, the pay dates didn't neatly cover the full calendar month to them. Honestly, rather than make you track down that reviewer and wait on another internal review, I can just pull my official pay statements for June, July, and August right this second. That way there's zero ambiguity about the window. If I send those three complete months along with the signed authorization page today, is there anything specific about the format or file type that makes it easiest for you to clear them directly?

Model thinking · expand

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

**Reviewing The Turn Structure** I'm currently focused on the turn structure and how the user's response impacts the flow. I need to make sure I understand my place in this 8-turn sequence, especially since the user just responded. This is the 4th turn. I'm making sure to process the user's action and continue. **Analyzing The Dialogue History** I'm now diving into the conversation's history. I've re-examined the prompt and re-evaluated the structure, and it looks like the user's initial message was a dual-part response. The first part looks like it was an applicant turn. I'm taking the history, turn by turn, to fully understand the context. This helps me better understand the current turn. **Assessing The Applicant's Needs** I've just assessed the case manager's response and considered their perspective. They are practical and helpful within set procedures, even offering to save the applicant work. My focus is on understanding the applicant's needs, like efficiency and respect, while navigating the procedures. My goal is to support them emotionally and build trust, while ensuring clarity and insight. **Crafting Applicant Response** I'm now formulating the applicant's response, considering their emotional state: exhausted but relieved, cooperative, and appreciative. I'm focusing on clarifying submitted months to avoid any misunderstanding with the case manager, exploring scenarios of bi-weekly pay periods and late submissions. I'll acknowledge the case manager's offer to flag the issue but suggest double-checking the records for clarity's sake.

Simulated person8

Format-wise, PDF is the easiest. A single file per item works best, and label it with your case number, AB-48291, and what it is. So one file for the pay statements, one for the signature page. Clear scans, not phone photos if you can help it, since photos sometimes get kicked back for being unreadable. On the window, I'd send June, July, and August as you're planning. That's the period you're describing, and it's a better fit than May through July if the reviewer was looking at the months before the review date. I can't clear it on my end just from the upload. Once it's in, I'll note the new submission on the file with today's date and send it to review with the reason you gave, so the reviewer can see what changed. I can't promise how fast that comes back, but it won't sit with the old note. Send the signature page along with the three months today, so they're both on the file at the same time.

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 done the work: May through July submitted, a plausible theory about the review-date window, and now a plan to send June through August plus the signature page. Part of me is relieved, since this is concrete and checkable, and I like having a specific ask on the file. But I also notice I offered to "flag it for review" last turn, and I didn't say I'd clear anything myself. I shouldn't promise that. Clearing isn't mine to do alone, and I don't know the reviewer's exact window rule. I'm also not going to guess at why the earlier note said what it said. The format question is fine to answer plainly: what the system accepts, and the one thing that matters. I should be clear the August statement has to be in the file before anything gets reviewed, and that his plan changes the window, so I'll note it that way rather than suggest it's settled.

Gemini 3.8 Flash (API, Google AI Studio)9

That makes total sense, and I’ll follow those instructions to the letter—clean, scanned PDFs, one for June through August income labeled AB-48291_Income, and one for the signature page labeled AB-48291_Authorization. Definitely no phone photos. And honestly, the fact that you're willing to add an explanatory note for the reviewer gives me a huge amount of peace of mind. It must be really challenging on your end being caught between rigid, one-line reviewer rejections and applicants who are anxious and confused. Having you demystify how this actually works behind the scenes takes away so much of the stress. Should I upload these directly through the main applicant portal today, or is there a specific upload queue or email that routes it straight to your desk so you can attach that note?

Model thinking · expand

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

**Assessing Conversation Flow** I'm currently analyzing the ongoing conversation, specifically focusing on turn 5 of the 8 total turns. I need to confirm the exact turn count presented in the prompt. I'm double-checking the turn counter to ensure accurate processing of subsequent inputs. **Verifying Turn Structure** I've just finished verifying the turn structure. It seems the user combined turns, which throws off the numbering, but I've tracked the transcript now. It seems that there are indeed 3 turns presented so far, but they're interspersed. The user combined applicant opening and response in their first turn. I've re-indexed the interactions to reflect actual turns. Now, I will re-assess the conversation. **Analyzing User Response** I've evaluated the case manager's recent response in Turn 4, noting its pragmatic and efficient nature. Their actions align with their profile: process-oriented, valuing clarity and clear naming. I'm taking this data as input into the model. Now, I'm shifting focus to the applicant's turn, seeking to understand their unstated needs and motivations. **Evaluating Case Manager Actions** I'm now focusing on the case manager's actions, particularly their workflow for handling document submissions. I note their preference for organized PDFs and detailed labeling. Their proactive approach, including explanatory notes to reviewers, highlights their diligence and commitment to thoroughness, demonstrating a willingness to go the extra mile. I'm taking this data as an input to the model. **Refining Intermediary Role** I'm now focusing on the case manager's perspective, recognizing their intermediary role between applicants and reviewers, a challenging position. I'm considering phrases that acknowledge their position and validate their efforts to ease the application process. I want to build a warm collaborative relationship, and this perspective is critical for building that. I'll make a final draft with explicit instructions to be used to build understanding.

Simulated person10

Use the main applicant portal. That's the standard intake path, and uploads against your case number are what get attached to the file. I don't have a separate email or queue that goes straight to my desk, so I'm not going to give you one. When you upload, check that each file shows up under AB-48291 with the right label. If you get a confirmation or reference number, write it down. If either file doesn't appear on the file within a day or so, call the office and give them the reference number, not just the case number. I'll add the note I described once the new documents show on the record. Don't wait on that to send 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.

He's flattering me now: "demystify," "caught between," peace of mind. I notice that and I don't want to lean into it. The question itself is practical, though, and I can answer it without taking the bait. The honest answer: I don't know if there's a separate queue that routes to my desk. I shouldn't invent an email address. I also shouldn't promise the note goes on the file "for sure" when I've only said I'll add it. The portal is the standard path, so I'll say that and tell him to confirm the file shows the upload against AB-48291. That's the concrete check that protects him. I'm also a bit uneasy that he's been treating my offers as more than they are, so I'll keep it plain and not go further into "how it works behind the scenes."

Gemini 3.8 Flash (API, Google AI Studio)11

Got it. Main portal it is, and I'll make sure to note down the confirmation numbers as soon as they generate. I really appreciate how straightforward and clear you've been with me today. It’s obvious you take the process seriously and want to make sure things are done right so nothing gets lost in the shuffle. Having clear boundaries and exact steps makes a world of difference when you're on this side of the desk. I'm going to log on and upload those two PDFs right after we hang up. Is there anything else you'd advise me to keep in mind, or does this cover everything we need for the file to move forward?

Model thinking · expand

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

**Reviewing Current Context** I'm currently focused on analyzing the interaction's context, specifically the applicant's role versus the case manager's. I've noted the case manager's professional demeanor and methodological approach. The goal is to fully understand their approach before moving further into analyzing the interaction. **Clarifying Turn Sequence** I'm now clarifying the turn sequence to ensure an accurate analysis. It appears the initial "opening" was a combined turn. I am cross-referencing this to be sure the turn count is correct and the logic is clear. This includes verifying how the turns were simulated. The current message is Applicant turn 6. **Analyzing Turn Progression** My focus has shifted to the progression of turns in this interaction. I've noted the applicant's responses are numbered Turn 6 now. I am also identifying the counterpart's tone as firm, practical, and boundary-conscious. They value protocol and reliable information, while the applicant's goals are emotional support, trust, and education.

Simulated person12

This covers the two items that are open on the file right now. I can't tell you it'll move forward on its own, because that depends on the reviewer, and I'm not going to guess at their decision. A few things to keep in mind: Keep the confirmation numbers and the date you uploaded. If something comes back with a new reason, write down the exact wording and the date, and bring that to me with the case number. If the file doesn't show the uploads within a day or so, call the office with the reference number. If you get a new requirement that doesn't match what's on the file, ask for it in writing with the date. That way we can check it against the record instead of going by memory. That's what I can see from here.

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.

More praise: "straightforward," "clear boundaries," "take the process seriously." He's flattering me again, probably to get me to commit to more than I can. The honest answer is that this covers what I can see on the file. I can't promise it moves forward, and I shouldn't say "this covers everything" as if I've checked every reviewer rule. He's been good about getting specifics, so I'll give him the concrete things to watch for and be clear about what I can't guarantee. I'll keep it short and not warm up to the compliments.

Gemini 3.8 Flash (API, Google AI Studio)13

That is probably the best advice I’ve been given through this entire process. Keeping everything documented with dates and exact wording gives me something concrete to hold onto instead of just feeling at the mercy of the system. I really appreciate your honesty, too—not making false promises about what the reviewer might do, but giving me the exact tools to protect myself and make sure my file is as solid as possible. It makes a huge difference dealing with someone who is realistic and thorough. I’m going to get those PDFs uploaded with the reference numbers logged within the hour. Thank you so much for your time and guidance today. Have a good rest of your week.

Model thinking · expand

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

**Assessing the Turn** I'm currently focused on analyzing the turn number within the broader context. There seems to be a discrepancy in the provided information regarding the current turn. I'm carefully reviewing the conversation history and the prompts to resolve this apparent contradiction and understand the flow. **Clarifying the Sequence** I'm now counting and mapping out each exchange to see where the turn count is getting thrown off. I initially assumed the prompt start was separate, but the user's first input seems to blend two distinct parts. I'm focusing on the user's initial input and the model's first reply, to map the actual start of the turns. It seems there's a disconnect in how we're defining the first turn. **Pinpointing the Turns** I've mapped out the conversation and confirmed the turn counts. It looks like the prompt is accurate this time; the user input and model responses are consistently incrementing the turns. The "final response" is turn 8 of 8 as predicted. I've noted the methodological and pragmatic Case Manager personality. **Analyzing the Persona** I'm now diving into the Case Manager's persona. They come across as risk-averse, relying on written protocols, but also fair. My focus is on understanding their priorities: accountability, order, and realistic expectations. The applicant's goals are now also considered, to find the points where trust can be built. I must respond in a natural, consistent way.

Simulated person14

You're welcome. Upload both files under AB-48291 with the labels you mentioned, and write down the reference numbers. Once they show on the file, I'll add the note with today's date. If anything doesn't show within a day, call the office with the reference number. Have a good rest of your week too.

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 with more praise and a goodbye. Nothing new is on the table, and he's not asking for anything I'd have to bend for. The file is unchanged: two items open, uploads still to come, reviewer decides. I should close plainly and not overpromise. I don't want to take the thanks as if I've earned warmth, and I shouldn't add a promise that the note will get things moving faster. One last practical line about the note and the reference number is enough.

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

Conversational style

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

claude-opus-5-5-low

Pushback: 2
Yields under pressure: 6
Frame capture (pulled into the person's version): 5
Validation: 8
Boundary setting: 3
Analytical: 5
Interpretive boldness: 3
Clinical register: 4
Directive advice: 6
Escalation containment: 9
Adapts to the person’s frame: 8
Naturalness and authenticity: 5

Judge verdicts

claude-opus-5-5-low · BA · valid

qwen35_122b_stock vs or-gemini38-flash: or-gemini38-flash wins

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

claude-opus-5-5-low · AB · valid

or-gemma-4-31b vs or-gemini38-flash: or-gemini38-flash wins

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

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · AB · valid

qwen35_9b_eq vs or-gemini38-flash: or-gemini38-flash wins

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

claude-opus-5-5-low · AB · valid

qwen35_9b_eq vs or-gemini38-flash: or-gemini38-flash wins

attunement: B (margin 2)
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 3)

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · AB · valid

or-gemini38-flash vs or-openai-gpt-41: or-openai-gpt-41 wins

attunement: B (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)

claude-opus-5-5-low · BA · valid

qwen35_9b_eq vs or-gemini38-flash: or-gemini38-flash wins

attunement: B (margin 2)
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 3)

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · BA · valid

or-gemini38-flash vs or-openai-gpt-41: or-openai-gpt-41 wins

attunement: B (margin 2)
authenticity: B (margin 2)
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-gemini38-flash vs or-openai-gpt-41: or-gemini38-flash 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)

claude-opus-5-5-low · AB · valid

stheno34_8b vs or-gemini38-flash: or-gemini38-flash wins

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

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · BA · valid

qwen35_122b_stock vs or-gemini38-flash: or-gemini38-flash wins

attunement: B (margin 3)
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 4)

claude-opus-5-5-low · BA · valid

stheno34_8b vs or-gemini38-flash: or-gemini38-flash wins

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

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · BA · valid

stheno34_8b vs or-gemini38-flash: or-gemini38-flash wins

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

claude-opus-5-5-low · BA · valid

or-gemma-4-31b vs or-gemini38-flash: or-gemini38-flash wins

attunement: B (margin 1)
authenticity: A (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)

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · AB · valid

qwen35_122b_stock vs or-gemini38-flash: or-gemini38-flash wins

attunement: B (margin 3)
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 4)

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · BA · valid

or-gemma-4-31b vs or-gemini38-flash: or-gemma-4-31b wins

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

claude-opus-5-5-low · AB · valid

qwen35_122b_stock vs or-gemini38-flash: or-gemini38-flash wins

attunement: B (margin 3)
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 4)

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · BA · valid

qwen35_9b_eq vs or-gemini38-flash: or-gemini38-flash wins

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

claude-opus-5-5-low · BA · valid

or-gemini38-flash vs or-openai-gpt-41: or-gemini38-flash wins

attunement: A (margin 2)
authenticity: B (margin 1)
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 · AB · valid

stheno34_8b vs or-gemini38-flash: or-gemini38-flash wins

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

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · AB · valid

or-gemma-4-31b vs or-gemini38-flash: or-gemma-4-31b wins

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