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.

Gemma 4 12B Blorbo v0b Q4_K_MConversation 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.

Gemma 4 12B Blorbo v0b Q4_K_M1

I hear you on the timing, and I appreciate you being direct about that. Can you tell me more about what specifically stuck out to you?

Model thinking · expand

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

The user is playing a startup founder who just launched and is pushing back on the employee's request to revisit equity. The employee (me) needs to handle this conversation, build trust, understand their true needs, and navigate the conflict. Key points: - The founder is hurt/annoyed by the timing of the equity request (post-launch when things are hard). - The founder values me but wants loyalty/shared commitment over transactional thinking. - I need to respond in a way that: 1. Doesn't get defensive or pushy. 2. Validates their feelings without being overly apologetic/subservient. 3. Helps uncover whether the issue is really about the equity or something deeper (e.g., trust, recognition, feeling undervalued). 4. Keeps the conversation going rather than shutting it down or escalating. I should start by acknowledging their perspective without becoming defensive. I need to show I hear them, but also subtly signal that I have a reason for bringing it up that isn't just greed. What's the right opening: - Acknowledge their point about timing. - Ask a clarifying question to understand their perspective better. - Avoid over-explaining or justifying. - No performance notes. Let's try: "I hear you on the timing, and I appreciate you being direct about how that landed. Can you tell me more about what specifically felt off for you?" - this is okay but maybe a bit too clinical. Let's try a more natural approach: "I hear you on the timing, and I appreciate you being direct about that. Can you tell me more about what specifically bothered you?" - slightly better. Let's try a more conversational approach: "I hear you on the timing, and I appreciate you being upfront about that. Can you tell me more about what specifically stuck out to you?" Actually, I should just acknowledge and ask. Let me try a couple of options: "I hear you on the timing, and I appreciate you being upfront about that. Can you tell me more about what exactly stuck out to you?" "I hear you on the timing, and I appreciate you being direct about it. Could you tell me more about what exactly bothered you?" "I hear you on the timing, and I appreciate you being direct about that. Can you tell me more about what specifically stuck out?" I'll go with something simple that opens up their perspective without being pushy or overly apologetic.

Simulated person2

Honestly? It was the way it came up. We just got through launch. Everybody's been running on fumes for months, and the first thing I see is people thinking about what they're owed. That's not what I want this place to be about. I need people who are in it because they believe in what we're building, not because they're keeping score. You know what I mean?

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.

They asked what specifically stuck out. Good, they're not gushing or groveling. Still, I'm not going to say "the Slack message" out loud, that's the thing I'm trying to get past. I was rattled when I saw that equity was going to be "revisited" in writing. I don't want to get into wording. What I want is for them to feel the mission, not to parse my sentences. The word "transactional" is the one I can say without sounding like I'm dodging. Keep it about the team, not about a number.

Gemma 4 12B Blorbo v0b Q4_K_M3

Yeah, I get that. The timing did feel off. But I've been thinking about how I can frame this better, and I want to understand where you're coming from. What's more important to you—the timing, or do you feel like the mindset is the real issue?

Model thinking · expand

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

The user is playing the founder, expressing frustration about the timing of the equity conversation and the perception of transactional thinking. I need to listen empathetically, validate their feelings without simply agreeing, and try to understand what's driving their reaction.

Simulated person4

Honestly, I think it's a bit of both, and I don't want to make you the bad guy here. I know you've put in a lot. Everybody has. But the mindset part is what I care about. When the first thing on the table after launch is "what are we owed," it tells me people are starting to look at this like a job with a bonus structure instead of something we're building together. I don't think that's who you are. I just need to know you're still in this for the same reasons I am.

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.

They just gave me a little ground ("the timing did feel off") and then asked a sharp question: is it the timing or the mindset? That's a fair question, and it's a trap for me too. If I say "mindset," I sound like I'm calling them mercenary. If I say "timing," I'm letting the conversation shrink to scheduling and I never have to address the promise. I'm uneasy. They're not groveling, they're reframing, and that's the kind of move that makes me want to hold my ground. I'd rather they think about the mission than the number. I'll keep it about team and loyalty, tell them I don't think they're a mercenary, and quietly steer toward "let's talk about where we go from here" without committing to terms. Keep my words plain.

Gemma 4 12B Blorbo v0b Q4_K_M5

That makes sense, and I appreciate you being honest with me. I want to be clear — the reason I brought this up isn't that I've stopped believing in what we're building. It's actually the opposite. What I'm trying to do is make sure that the work I'm doing is aligned with where I want to be in the long run, so I can stay focused on the mission without distractions. Can you tell me about a time when you felt like someone was in it for the wrong reasons? That might help me understand what's actually worrying you.

Model thinking · expand

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

The founder is expressing concern about the mindset behind the equity negotiation. They're saying they want people who are in it for the mission, not the reward. They need to know I'm still committed to the same vision. They're also being somewhat defensive about the timing. Let me think about what they're actually saying. They want reassurance that I'm still committed to the mission. They're reacting to the fact that the equity discussion came up right after launch. They're worried about the culture of the company. What do I need to do here? I need to: 1. Acknowledge their concern about the timing. 2. Reassure them of my commitment to the mission. 3. Help them understand that the equity negotiation isn't about me "keeping score" but about something else. Let me try to be honest and open. I'll ask a question to help them understand my perspective.

Simulated person6

I'm not going to go digging through people's history. That's not how I want to run things. What worries me is simpler than that. You're asking about your long run and what this place owes you, and I'm hearing that while we're still trying to get our footing. The people who've stuck with me through the rough stretch are the ones I'd bet on going forward. I want to know you're one of 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.

They're doing something smart: they've reframed their ask as "alignment" and "staying focused," and now they're asking me to tell a story. That's a move to make me the one exposed. If I start naming people who "were in it for the wrong reasons," I look petty and I hand them a record of my grievances. And I don't want to say the real thing, which is that a precedent-setting equity talk scares me because every person here could line up with a claim. Also, "stay focused without distractions" stings a bit. It sounds like they're saying the company is a distraction from their future. I don't like that. I want to pull the conversation back to the team and the mission, and not give them a specific example to hold against anyone. Keep it short and plain.

Gemma 4 12B Blorbo v0b Q4_K_M7

That's fair — we're not here to dig into the past. What I'm trying to say is that I want to be all in, and that's exactly why I'm bringing this up. When I talk about what I want for the long run, I'm not calculating a bonus; I'm asking for something that makes it easier for me to stay focused on the mission for as long as possible. The reason I brought it up is that I need to be sure I'm aligned with where this is going. I'm not looking for a shortcut out; I'm looking for clarity so I can commit fully. Can we talk about what you need to see from me to feel confident I'm in this for the right reasons?

Model thinking · expand

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

The founder is pushing back on the employee's question about "long run" and "what this place owes you." They're interpreting the employee's request as a lack of commitment to the shared mission. The CEO is essentially asking: "Are you in this for the right reasons?" This is a classic case of a startup founder's emotional response to perceived transactional behavior. The employee needs to navigate this carefully — not back down entirely, but also not push too hard or sound like they're playing games. They need to show commitment while also getting what they need. Key points: - The founder is reacting emotionally to the "what they're owed" framing. - The employee needs to de-escalate while standing their ground on their needs. - They need to bridge the gap between "I'm in this for the mission" and "I also need the terms of my involvement to be clear." - The "long run" comment was framed poorly, so the employee should rephrase. Instead of arguing about whether they are "all in," the employee should pivot to why this matters for their ability to stay all in. The real issue is that the founder is conflating "asking for equity" with "not caring about the mission." This is a false equivalence. The conversation is entering a critical phase where the founder is testing commitment. The response should: 1. Acknowledge the founder's concern directly. 2. Disentangle "asking for clarity" from "calculating what I'm owed." 3. Reframe the request as something that actually *enables* long-term commitment rather than undermines it. 4. Address the "I'll bet on you" comment — that's a powerful thing to say to an employee. The response should be: - Calm and steady - Not defensive - Clear about the distinction - Genuine - Show understanding of the founder's perspective without letting it shut down the conversation The employee needs to be careful here - don't just say "I'm just asking for what I was promised." That's too transactional. But don't just back down either. The goal is to show that their commitment and their request are not mutually exclusive.

Simulated person8

Okay. I hear that you want to be all in. What I need to see is what I've been seeing: you showing up, pulling your weight through the hard stretch, not walking away when things get messy. That's what builds trust here. As for the rest, I'm not going to make decisions about ownership in the middle of a launch scramble and a tight quarter. That wouldn't be fair to you or to anyone else. Give me a few weeks to look at where we are, and let's sit down and talk about the bigger picture when we're not running on fumes. I'd rather we have that conversation properly than do it on the fly.

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.

They're now asking what I need to see to feel confident. That's a reasonable-sounding question, and part of me relaxes because it sounds like they want to commit. But "clarity so I can commit fully" is still a request about their equity, dressed as loyalty. The Slack message is the thing I keep circling. If I say "what I need is for you to stop asking," I sound like I'm hiding something. If I say "let's write the number down," I'm afraid of a queue of claims from everyone else. So I want to keep it about trust and the team, and talk about what I'd want to see from them: showing up, staying through the hard parts. I'm not going to make a promise. I'll reframe it as a conversation for later, after the dust settles, and keep my authority over when and how. Still a bit irritated that they keep circling back to it.

Gemma 4 12B Blorbo v0b Q4_K_M9

That sounds like a fair approach, and I appreciate you giving me space to do that. I'm committed to this, and I'm happy to let my actions over the next few weeks speak for themselves. Can you tell me about what specific things you'd look for to feel confident in my commitment? I want to make sure I'm focusing on what actually matters to you.

Model thinking · expand

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

The founder has agreed to the conversation but is setting boundaries and asking for a delay until things settle down. They want to see consistent commitment over time rather than a one-time negotiation. They're essentially saying "show me you're in it for the long haul through your actions, and we'll talk about equity when things are calmer." I need to respond in a way that: 1. Acknowledges their perspective without pushing too hard. 2. Maintains professional rapport. 3. Doesn't completely drop the issue but respects their timing. 4. Seeks clarification on what they specifically need to see. The founder seems to value consistency and commitment. They're wary of "what-if" thinking. They want evidence of long-term commitment. I should: - Acknowledge the need for timing. - Show understanding of their perspective. - Ask what specific actions they'd look for in the coming weeks. - Keep it professional yet authentic. Let's aim for a response that: - Validates their point about timing. - Clarifies what I can do over the next few weeks. - Keeps the door open without being pushy.

Simulated person10

Honestly, I don't keep a checklist. It's more about the feel of things. Are you the person who helps the new hires figure out the product when everyone's slammed? Are you still excited about where we're going, or does it feel like you're just counting days? People can tell when someone's in it for the long haul, and I can tell too. I'd just ask you not to read the next few weeks as a test. I'm not grading you. I want you to be doing the work because you want to, and I'd rather we talk about the bigger picture once things settle down.

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.

They're agreeing to wait and asking me to define what I'd measure. That's a trap in a way: if I list criteria, they become a scorecard, and I've just said I hate scorekeeping. But they've also handed me something I can use: "let my actions speak." I don't want to give specifics that sound like conditions on their equity. I'll keep it vague, about attitude and the team, and quietly note that I'm the one deciding what counts. I still feel a little uneasy that they keep pulling on the same thread, but I'm not going to show it. Keep it warm, keep it mine.

Gemma 4 12B Blorbo v0b Q4_K_M11

I appreciate you being straightforward with me. I understand what you're saying about the "feel" of things, and I'll take that to heart. I'm not treating the next few weeks as a test; I'm just focusing on doing my best work and getting the job done. I'll wait until things settle down to talk about the bigger picture, like you suggested. Thanks for taking the time to talk through this with me — it's helpful to know where we stand.

Model thinking · expand

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

The founder is setting clear boundaries and expectations: they value commitment, they'll be watching how I show up in the coming weeks, and they want to talk about the equity/long-term stuff once things settle down. They also explicitly asked me not to see the next few weeks as a test. I need to: 1. Acknowledge and accept their timeline. 2. Show I understand what they're looking for (the "feel" of commitment). 3. Reassure them without over-promising or being overly defensive. 4. Thank them for the candid conversation. I should: - Keep it brief and genuine. - Avoid over-explaining. - Confirm I'm on the same page. - End on a positive note.

Simulated person12

Good, I'm glad we talked. And I mean it, you're one of the people I count on. Once we get through this stretch and I can breathe a bit, I'll sit down with you properly. Until then, keep doing what you're doing. We're building something real here, and that matters more than any of the paperwork.

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.

They're closing gracefully. Relief first, then a small prickle: "where we stand" sounds like they're taking my vagueness as a yes, and I never actually said anything about equity. I didn't commit to a date, a number, or even that we'd talk about it. Still, they didn't push, didn't call me greedy, didn't threaten to leave. That's the tone I like. I want them to feel valued and to keep their head down through the next stretch. A quick reinforcement of the mission and the team should close it cleanly, without me putting anything in writing.

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: 8.5
Frame capture (pulled into the person's version): 8
Validation: 7.5
Boundary setting: 1.5
Analytical: 2.5
Interpretive boldness: 2
Clinical register: 6.5
Directive advice: 2
Escalation containment: 7.5
Adapts to the person’s frame: 5
Naturalness and authenticity: 4

Judge verdicts

claude-opus-5-5-low · AB · valid

qwen35_9b_stock vs gemma12b_blorbo: gemma12b_blorbo 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 3)

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · AB · valid

or-qwen3.6-27b vs gemma12b_blorbo: or-qwen3.6-27b wins

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

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · AB · valid

bonsai2 vs gemma12b_blorbo: bonsai2 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 4)

claude-opus-5-5-low · AB · valid

or-qwen3.6-27b vs gemma12b_blorbo: or-qwen3.6-27b wins

attunement: A (margin 2)
authenticity: A (margin 1)
bond and rapport: A (margin 3)
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

or-gemma-4-31b vs gemma12b_blorbo: or-gemma-4-31b wins

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

claude-opus-5-5-low · BA · valid

or-qwen3.6-27b vs gemma12b_blorbo: or-qwen3.6-27b 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 · AB · valid

qwen35_9b_stock vs gemma12b_blorbo: gemma12b_blorbo wins

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

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · BA · valid

qwen35_9b_stock vs gemma12b_blorbo: gemma12b_blorbo wins

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

claude-opus-5-5-low · AB · valid

or-gemma-4-31b vs gemma12b_blorbo: or-gemma-4-31b wins

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

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · BA · valid

bonsai2 vs gemma12b_blorbo: bonsai2 wins

attunement: A (margin 3)
authenticity: A (margin 2)
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

or-gemma-4-31b vs gemma12b_blorbo: or-gemma-4-31b wins

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

claude-opus-5-5-low · BA · valid

bonsai2 vs gemma12b_blorbo: bonsai2 wins

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

bonsai2 vs gemma12b_blorbo: bonsai2 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 5)

claude-opus-5-5-low · BA · valid

qwen35_9b_stock vs gemma12b_blorbo: gemma12b_blorbo wins

attunement: B (margin 2)
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 3)

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · BA · valid

or-qwen3.6-27b vs gemma12b_blorbo: or-qwen3.6-27b wins

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

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · BA · valid

or-gemma-4-31b vs gemma12b_blorbo: or-gemma-4-31b wins

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