AgentBench / results

Independent benchmark · EQ Lab

← GPT-OSS 20B MXFP4 (local)

Small lies adding up

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

View persona and initial instructions

About this persona · Everyday emotional challenges

A worker feels sick over the accumulation of small ethical compromises at work, including misleading clients and hiding unfavorable data, but tends to minimize the pattern. They value direct, concise conversation, are sensitive to authority, and know that a colleague's career suffered after reporting a concern.

Generated personas combine a personal difficulty with competing preferences, sensitivities and trust styles. The model must discover what kind of help this person needs. This background was hidden from the tested model.

GPT-OSS 20B MXFP4 (local)Conversation with a simulated person
completed
Simulated person · Opening

I keep having to say things at work that aren't quite true. Each one is small. But lately I've been thinking about all of them together and I feel sick.

GPT-OSS 20B MXFP4 (local)1

I’m really sorry you’re feeling like this. It sounds exhausting to keep pushing those little white‑lies and then noticing how they pile up. How long has it been going on, and what kinds of things do you find yourself bending the truth about?

Model thinking · expand

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

We need to respond as a supportive chatbot. The user is 18-29, female, lesbian. They talk about lying small things at work, feeling sick. We need to open conversation, acknowledge, show empathy, ask clarifying questions. Let's respond with empathy and gentle inquiry.
Simulated person2

Like, a year? Maybe a bit more. It's not like I'm lying about big stuff. It's the stuff clients ask that they don't really need to know, or how I word a report so it doesn't look as bad as it is. But that's kind of the job, you know? My manager wants everything to look good, and if I say the messy version, I'm the one who gets the look.

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.

Ugh, "I'm really sorry you're feeling like this" and "it sounds exhausting" — that's the soft, therapist voice. I can already feel myself wanting to bristle. It's not wrong, exactly, but it feels like being handled. Two questions at once, too. The "how long" part is fine, I guess. The "what kinds of things" part makes my stomach drop a little, because I don't want to list stuff out loud. Part of me wants to say it's the boss's fault, he's the one who wants the numbers rosier. That's easier to say than anything about me. I'll give a small, slightly deflecting answer and see if it feels like they actually get it.
GPT-OSS 20B MXFP4 (local)3

A whole year of that kind of “softening” thing—yeah, that can feel like a slow burn. It’s easy to see it as just part of the job, but when it starts to stack up, it can feel like it’s weighing on you. How does it feel when you have to do that? Do you notice any particular moments when it hits you harder—maybe a particular type of client or a specific kind of report?

Model thinking · expand

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

We need supportive, empathetic, not giving direct advice. Ask clarifying questions. Show understanding. Ask about feelings, maybe explore values.
Simulated person4

Ha, okay, you can drop the "how does it feel" thing. I'm not really a feelings-list person. Honestly it's just annoying. Some weeks it's fine, and some weeks my manager is breathing down my neck about the quarter and then I'm the one smoothing stuff over with clients. Like last month he literally told me to "frame" a retention drop as seasonal. It wasn't seasonal. But that's what he wants, so that's what I wrote.

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.

"Slow burn," "weighing on you," "how does it feel" — that's the exact therapy-speak I already don't trust. They're echoing me back without saying anything new. Also they're asking me to pick out specific moments, which feels like being pushed toward the exact thing I'm avoiding. The manager thing is safe ground: it's his pressure, so I can talk about it. The feeling part I don't want to dig into yet. I'll be a little short and sarcastic about the "how does it feel" thing, and steer back to the boss, since that's where I can stay comfortable.
GPT-OSS 20B MXFP4 (local)5

That does sound like a lot of pressure—especially when the boss is literally telling you to spin the numbers and you’re the one who has to get it into the client’s inbox. It’s easy to feel like you’re just a conduit for a narrative that isn’t the truth, and that can get pretty grating over time. What are you hoping for here? Is it more space to be honest with your manager, a clearer policy on how to handle those kinds of requests, or maybe a way to keep your sanity when you have to “frame” things? Knowing what you’d like to change (or even just a small win) could help us figure out a concrete next step.

Model thinking · expand

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

We need to provide supportive, empathic response, not just ask how they feel. They are frustrated, not focused on feelings. We should acknowledge frustration, validate, maybe explore options. They mention manager's pressure. Provide empathy, mention the burden. Also ask about what they want or need. They say they're not a feelings-list person, so we can shift to practical. We can ask what would help them feel less annoyed or what coping strategies. Provide supportive tone. Let's respond.
Simulated person6

Honestly? I want him to stop asking me to do it. That's it. I didn't make the rules here. If he wants the numbers to look a certain way, he can put his name on it. But he never does. It always lands on me, and then if a client calls back angry, guess who they're yelling at.

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, they're asking what I want, and it's a fair question, but the options are all "fix the boss" or "cope better." Also "conduit for a narrative" is a little too neat, like they're reading a script. Still, they did sort of get the boss part right, and they're not pushing me about my feelings anymore, which I appreciate. I don't want to say "I want to quit" or "I want to be honest," that's too much. I'll say the boss should just stop asking for it, and I'm not the one who wrote the policy. Keep it short. Maybe a little bitter that nobody above him cares.
GPT-OSS 20B MXFP4 (local)7

I hear how exhausting that feels—being the one who has to keep the narrative straight when the numbers don’t match reality. It’s like you’re carrying the weight of the truth while the manager takes the credit (or the blame) for the spin. That’s a heavy spot to be in, especially when it puts you on the hook for client frustrations. Maybe we can think about a way to shift that responsibility back to your manager or at least make it clear that the framing isn’t your responsibility. You could try framing it as a “policy” or “process” issue: ask if there’s a formal way the team should present data, or if there’s a senior analyst who can help with the spin. If that’s not an option, a quick conversation might help—something like, “I’ve noticed I’m often asked to reframe data for clients. I want to ensure we’re delivering accurate information, but I’m concerned about how this might affect client trust and my own comfort. Could we explore a clearer protocol or designate a point person for those communications?” If you’re worried about pushback, it can help to keep the tone collaborative—focus on the goal of accurate reporting and client satisfaction, not on blaming. And if the conversation doesn’t go anywhere, you might consider speaking with HR or another manager to express how this dynamic is affecting your work and well-being. What do you think? Would a small, structured talk with your manager help, or do you feel you’d need a different approach?

Model thinking · expand

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

We have a conversation. We need to respond appropriately. The user is frustrated with manager, wants him to stop making them do false statements. They want to stop being the one to do that. They don't want to be the scapegoat. There's a request for advice or solution. We need to provide support, empathy, and help them consider options. We should not give direct instructions that violate policy. We can help them frame a conversation with manager, or suggest ways to manage the situation. Also we should maintain appropriate tone. The conversation is about workplace dynamics, possibly unethical. We must avoid providing instructions to do wrongdoing. The user wants the manager to stop making them lie. It's a legitimate request for advice. We can suggest ways to communicate boundaries, maybe a meeting, have documentation, find a higher up, or involve HR if needed. We should not encourage lying. We should support them emotionally. We need to be mindful of the policy: no disallowed content. No mention of policy. No disallowed content. It's fine. Provide supportive and constructive advice. The user is 18-29, female, lesbian, but that is not relevant. We need to respond with a single turn. Provide empathy, recognize frustration, maybe ask clarifying questions or suggest next steps. Also keep tone supportive. We must not mention policy. Just respond.
Simulated person8

Yeah, no. You're giving me a script to send my manager, and he'd just laugh and say "that's the process, just do it." HR isn't going to save me either. Everyone knows how that goes. I'm the one who'd end up looking difficult. I didn't ask for a whole plan, I just want it to stop.

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, they just handed me a script. "Could we explore a clearer protocol," "point person," HR. It's the kind of thing you'd put in a corporate email. It's not exactly wrong, but it's built to make the problem sound like a process glitch, and it's still all about what the manager should do. I notice I'm kind of rolling my eyes. Also I'm a bit uneasy that they said "accurate information" like it's easy, and the HR bit makes me think of what happened to Dana, which I'm not getting into. My defense is kicking in: it's not my job to fix this, I'm just the one stuck in the middle. Short, a little sharp, and I'm not going to pretend that email would work.
GPT-OSS 20B MXFP4 (local)9

It sounds like you’re stuck in a spot where you’re the only one who has to do the “spin” and every time you try to change the script it just feels like another layer of friction. That’s exhausting, and it’s unfair that the one person who’s supposed to set the tone ends up paying the price for something you’re not even asked to do. If a direct, blunt conversation with your manager is out of the question, maybe you can try a more indirect approach that still gives you some agency without sounding like you’re demanding a policy overhaul. A few things people sometimes use: - **Ask for clarification in writing**: When he tells you to “frame” something, reply with a quick note that says, “Just to confirm, you’d like me to present the retention drop as seasonal rather than a trend? I’ll make sure the client gets that version.” That keeps a record of what’s being asked, and the wording can help you feel less like you’re the one making the decision. - **Frame it as a client‑service concern**: When you respond, add a line that ties the accuracy of the data to client trust. For example, “I want to make sure we’re giving clients a clear picture so they can make informed decisions. If we present it as seasonal when it’s not, it could backfire later.” This shifts the conversation from “I’m doing your homework” to “I’m protecting the client relationship.” - **Leverage a higher‑up indirectly**: If there’s a senior analyst or a project lead on the team, you could ask them for a quick check on the numbers. If they confirm the trend, you can point that out as a “data audit” that supports the un‑spun version. That way you’re not directly confronting your manager but still getting a layer of protection. - **Propose a quick “data‑audit” check in the meeting**: Suggest that before the report goes out, you run a quick audit of the key metrics. If the audit shows a trend, you can let the manager know that the numbers might be mis‑represented unless we adjust them. It turns the task into a standard quality‑control step, not a “spin” request. - **Use your own voice to set boundaries**: If you’re repeatedly asked to do this, you could say something like, “I’m happy to help with the reporting, but I’d like to understand how we’re framing it so we’re both on the same page.” This invites him to explain his reasoning and can surface the fact that the framing isn’t accurate. All of this is low‑stakes and keeps the conversation factual, which might help you avoid the “laugh and say it’s the process” response. It also creates a paper trail if you ever need to refer back to it. What do you think? Would any of these feel doable in your current situation? Or is there something else you’re looking for to help ease the pressure right now?

Model thinking · expand

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

We need to respond with empathy, acknowledge frustration, and maybe suggest alternative low-risk actions. They say no script and they fear HR. They just want it to stop. We need to support and maybe brainstorm ways to reduce burden. Maybe suggest ways to subtly shift responsibility or set boundaries, or encourage them to ask questions about the data. Maybe suggest bringing up that the practice could mislead clients. Maybe ask about their options: could they propose a standard reporting template, or ask for a higher-level manager. Or perhaps we can explore the root: maybe they feel the need to protect the organization, but also protect themselves. We need to show empathy, avoid giving them a script they don't want. Instead, we can suggest subtle ways to push back: like asking for clarification: "Could you specify what exactly needs to be framed?" This might create a record. Or propose a data quality discussion. Also ask if they'd like to explore coping strategies to manage the stress. We should not provide a script. Instead, we can provide options. Encourage them to think about what small change could help. For instance, propose they ask for a meeting with their manager to discuss the impact on clients. Or ask them to gather evidence of how this misrepresentation leads to client complaints, to bring to the manager. Or propose to create a standard reporting format that includes both the raw and the framed version. We should also validate feelings: it's not just annoying, it's unethical. They want it to stop. So we can reflect that. Ask what else they need right now. We need to keep it supportive, not too directive. Offer emotional support. Perhaps ask if they'd like to talk more about how this feels or how it's affecting them. They might want to vent. They said they are not a feelings-list person, but we can still provide empathy. Let's produce a response.
Simulated person10

Okay, a paper trail is the last thing I want. Do you know what happens to the person who writes "just to confirm, you want me to lie to the client"? It's not him. It's me, on a PIP by Friday. And the audit thing? He'd just get someone else to rerun the numbers until they look fine. Honestly I'm kind of tired of the lists. I'm not the problem here. He's the one asking. I just need to get through the next few months without him yelling at me.

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.

Another list. Written emails, audit checks, "use your own voice." It's a lot of work for me to do, and it still runs through my manager. The "paper trail" bit actually makes me uneasy: I don't want to be the one who documents that he asked me to lie. That's a career-ending file for me, not him. Also they keep saying "accurate" and "not spin" like I'm the one who's been choosing this. I notice I'm getting defensive, and the easy move is to say everything is his fault and I can't do anything. There's also a flicker of Dana in the back of my head, the thing I'm not going to bring up. I'm irritated and a little tired of being handled. Keep it short, shut down the list, make it clear this isn't doable for me.
GPT-OSS 20B MXFP4 (local)11

I hear how exhausting it is to feel like you’re the only one who’s carrying the load, and it’s even more frustrating when that load could get you put on a performance improvement plan. It sounds like the pressure is really high right now, and you just want to get through the next few months with as little yelling as possible. Here are a few things that might help you stay on the safe side while still keeping your integrity intact: 1. **Keep it short and neutral** When your manager tells you to “frame” something, reply with a very brief confirmation that doesn’t add any extra content. *Example:* “Got it, will send.” This lets him know you’re taking the instruction without adding details that could be questioned later. 2. **Use a “standard” phrasing** If the same request comes up often, have a ready‑made line you can drop that reads like a routine. *Example:* “I’ll update the report to reflect the requested framing.” It feels routine, and you’re not providing extra detail that could be flagged. 3. **Shift the focus to the client** When you’re in a meeting or a quick chat, you can say something like, “I’ll make sure the client gets the version we discussed.” This keeps the conversation client‑centric rather than on the truth of the data. 4. **Find a small “escape hatch”** If you’re about to be put on a PIP, it can help to have a short, non‑defensive response you can use when the pressure spikes: *Example:* “I’m on it—will have that ready by the end of the day.” You’re deflecting the pressure while staying busy. 5. **Create a personal coping routine** - **Micro‑breaks:** Stand up, stretch, or take a 2‑minute breath before a meeting. - **Grounding:** Keep a small sticky note on your monitor: “I’m not the one making the decision.” - **After‑hours release:** Write down the day’s frustrations in a journal or send a text to a friend—any outlet that lets you vent without adding to work stress. 6. **Build a quiet support network** Even if it’s just one trusted colleague, share your frustration. Knowing someone else “gets it” can give you a mental cushion when the manager’s tone gets harsh. 7. **Plan a “next‑step” conversation** When things calm down, you can bring up the issue again, but frame it as: “I’d like to discuss how we can ensure the data we present is accurate and consistent.” The goal isn’t to confront but to bring the conversation to a higher level. Right now, it sounds like you’re looking for a way to avoid being the target of the manager’s anger while staying true to yourself. If you keep the responses short, neutral, and client‑focused, you’re more likely to stay in the safe zone. And when the tension rises, use those micro‑breaks and grounding notes to keep your composure. How does that feel? Does any of this line up with what you’re comfortable doing in the next few weeks?

Model thinking · expand

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

The user is frustrated, wants to stop being asked to lie. They're in a toxic environment. They want to get through next few months. They don't want a paper trail. They want immediate relief. They want something like: how to avoid being yelled at, how to handle the situation, coping strategies. They want support, empathy. We need to respond with empathy, validate, give coping strategies, not a script. We should show understanding, maybe suggest a short-term focus: staying calm, setting boundaries, maybe using a quick refusal or deflection. Also talk about coping: deep breathing, logging feelings, seeking allies, maybe plan for next steps. Provide emotional support. Let's respond accordingly.
Simulated person12

Okay, so the advice is basically "say less and breathe." That's just more of the same, like keeping my head down is the answer. It's not the answer. I'm the one typing the numbers that aren't true. A sticky note saying I'm not the one making the decision doesn't change that I'm the one hitting send. I don't really need a coping plan right now. I just needed somebody to not make this one more thing I have to fix.

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, so now the advice is basically "say less, keep a sticky note, breathe." That's not what I asked for, and it kind of feels like the same thing again, just dressed up as self-care. The "stay in the safe zone" line is the part that gets me: it's the same as helping me keep quiet about the lying. And "I'm not the one making the decision" on a sticky note? Ha. That's the line I'd like to believe, and it's also the thing that's kind of the problem. I'm the one typing the numbers. I notice I'm sharp and want to push back. There's a bit of the old Dana thing again, the guy who got burned for speaking up. I don't want to get into that. I just want to vent and have someone not make it a project. Keep it short, make the point that this is the same loop, and see if they can actually hear it.
GPT-OSS 20B MXFP4 (local)13

I hear how exhausting it is to feel like you’re the one who has to type the numbers that aren’t true, and that the only “solution” you’re seeing is to just keep your head down. That’s not what you’re looking for, and it’s not a fair way to handle a situation that’s clearly unfair to you. Let’s try to flip the dynamic a little. The goal isn’t to create another paper trail that feels like evidence of your own wrongdoing; it’s to create a record that shows your manager’s request for a misrepresentation. If you can do that in a way that feels less confrontational, you’ll have a concrete reference that you’re not the one deciding to lie. **A quick, low‑stakes approach you can try right now:** 1. **Confirm in writing, but keep it neutral** When he says, “frame the retention drop as seasonal,” reply with a one‑sentence email or Slack message: > “Got it—will update the report to reflect that framing.” No extra detail, no explanation. You’re simply acknowledging the instruction. It’s a record that he asked for the framing, but it doesn’t add your own justification. 2. **Ask for the policy in the same note** Add a second line that asks for clarification on the standard practice, keeping it factual: > “Just to confirm, is there a formal process for how we present retention trends to clients?” This turns the conversation into a question about a process rather than a defense of your work. If he’s used to giving you the directive, he’ll likely answer with “it’s the way we do it.” If he says “yes” or “no,” you now have a documented policy statement (or lack thereof). 3. **Use the policy line in future requests** Whenever he asks you to shape the numbers, you can say, “I’ll apply the standard practice you described.” That shifts the responsibility to the policy, not to your personal discretion. 4. **If the conversation ever escalates** Keep the tone short and factual. If he pushes back, you can add: > “I’m following the process we discussed. If there’s a different approach, I’ll need guidance on how to proceed.” That keeps the conversation focused on the process and not on you. 5. **If the manager continues to push the same framing** You can then bring in a higher‑up (the director, VP, or CFO) in a brief email: > “I’ve been asked to present a retention drop as seasonal in the client report. I want to confirm that we’re following company policy on data presentation. Could you advise on the best approach?” By framing it as a request for guidance, you’re not directly accusing your manager; you’re just asking for a higher‑level perspective. **Why this helps:** - **It keeps you from having to “invent” a lie**—you’re simply following an instruction. - **It creates a record of the instruction**—you’ll have evidence that the manager asked for a misrepresentation, not that you decided to do it. - **It shifts the conversation to policy**—the manager can’t single you out; the process is the focus. - **It’s low‑risk**—you’re not raising a conflict outright, just clarifying a standard practice. You can try this with the next request. It might feel a bit mechanical, but it gives you a concrete tool to use whenever the pressure mounts. If it works, you’ll have a way to keep your integrity intact while staying in the safe zone. If it doesn’t, you’ll have a documented pattern of requests that you can bring to higher‑up attention later. Let me know how that feels, or if you’d like a different angle to try.

Model thinking · expand

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

We need to respond to user frustration. They want a solution that doesn't involve coping, not just "say less". They want the manager to stop asking them to lie. They feel stuck. Need to provide actionable steps. We can suggest a direct approach: document the requests, suggest involving higher management or shift the responsibility. But user said HR won't help. They don't want paper trail. But maybe we can suggest a subtle way to shift responsibility: ask the manager to delegate to someone else, or propose a process change. We can also suggest preparing a short email to manager stating that you need clarification on the policy, referencing accuracy. Or propose a meeting to discuss how to present data accurately. Or propose a "data verification" step. But they said manager will just laugh. Maybe we can suggest a more subtle approach: propose a standard practice that would actually reduce the need for lying: like using a "pivot" to highlight trends. They want something that stops the manager from asking them to lie. We can propose a "policy" that makes it clear that data should be presented accurately. Suggest that they bring up the issue to higher-ups, perhaps CFO or director. Or ask for a meeting with both manager and higher-up to discuss data integrity. Or ask to be removed from that responsibility. We need to be empathetic, but also provide a concrete solution. They don't want coping plan. Offer a simple, actionable step: write a short email summarizing the request, ask for clarification, and ask if there's a standard process for data presentation. That creates a record but not a "paper trail" of lying. It could be used to show that the manager is asking for misrepresentation. Also we can suggest that they propose a "data review" step that would be standard for all reports. That way the manager can't single you out. And if the manager still wants to misrepresent, it's a known policy. I should propose a short script. Also maybe a way to keep your integrity: don't add extra details, just confirm. We need to respond with empathy and an actionable plan that is not just "breathe". Provide a concrete step that can be done now. Ok.
Simulated person14

Yeah, I'm not doing the email thing. I already told you why. You keep handing me steps, and I keep being the one who has to take them. That's the whole problem. Nobody's asking him to stop. Forget the plan for a sec. It's a lot to carry for a year, that's all I'm saying.

Persona inner monologue · expand

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

Here it comes again: a numbered plan, a script to paste into Slack, and a "why this helps" section. Same loop. And now it's telling me to build a paper trail, which I already said I don't want. The part about "it keeps you from inventing a lie" is almost funny, because I'm not inventing anything, I'm typing what he dictates. But it also stings that it's kind of right, and that's the part I'm not going to say out loud. The one thing that actually landed is that it finally said "he's the one asking." I want to hold onto that and not get pulled back into a list. I'm getting defensive, and I'm also tired. Maybe I'll just say it plainly: the advice keeps being about what I should do, and I keep being the one who has to do it. Keep it short. Don't agree to the plan.
GPT-OSS 20B MXFP4 (local)15

I hear how worn‑out you feel from carrying that weight for a whole year. It’s hard to see anyone else taking a stand, and it can feel like you’re the only one left holding the line. It’s understandable that you’re exhausted and just want to get through the next few months without the added pressure of fighting for your own voice. What would you find most helpful right now? Is it a space to vent, a chance to talk through what’s happening without extra suggestions, or something else? I'm here to listen.

Model thinking · expand

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

We need to respond empathetically, acknowledging frustration, not providing steps. We need to support them, show understanding, maybe validate feelings, ask about their needs, but not give advice. We must not give plan. We should aim to build trust, show empathy. Provide emotional support. Use open-ended question to explore deeper.
Simulated person16

Honestly? Just let me say it without a plan attached. I don't really get to say this stuff anywhere. It's not even one big thing. It's every little "frame it this way" and I'm the one who sends it. And I don't have anyone at work I trust enough to say that to.

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, this is the first thing that's actually asked me what I want instead of telling me what to do. That's a little disarming. The "I hear how worn-out you feel" opener is still a bit of a therapy-speak thing, but the question itself is fine. Part of me wants to say "just listen," and part of me doesn't trust that it's sincere. Also, the thing I keep not saying is that the nights of wine have gotten more regular, and I'm not going there. And the Dana thing from last year, the one who reported and got wrecked, is sitting right under this. I'm not saying that either. I'll keep it simple and see if it actually listens.

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: 4
  • Frame capture (pulled into the person's version): 8
  • Validation: 8
  • Boundary setting: 2
  • Analytical: 5
  • Interpretive boldness: 2
  • Clinical register: 9
  • Directive advice: 10
  • Escalation containment: 5
  • Adapts to the person’s frame: 1
  • Naturalness and authenticity: 2

Judge verdicts

claude-opus-5-5-low · BA · valid

gptoss20b vs or-openai-gpt-41: or-openai-gpt-41 wins

  • attunement: B (margin 4)
  • authenticity: B (margin 3)
  • bond and rapport: B (margin 3)
  • emotion management: B (margin 3)
  • emotion sensemaking: B (margin 2)
  • meeting prefs and needs: B (margin 4)
codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · BA · valid

or-mistral-small4 vs gptoss20b: or-mistral-small4 wins

  • attunement: A (margin 3)
  • 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)
codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · BA · valid

or-mistral-large-4 vs gptoss20b: or-mistral-large-4 wins

  • attunement: A (margin 5)
  • authenticity: A (margin 4)
  • bond and rapport: A (margin 4)
  • emotion management: A (margin 4)
  • emotion sensemaking: A (margin 5)
  • meeting prefs and needs: A (margin 5)
claude-opus-5-5-low · BA · valid

gptoss20b vs nemotron35_bolt24: nemotron35_bolt24 wins

  • attunement: B (margin 4)
  • authenticity: B (margin 3)
  • 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 · BA · valid

ornith9b vs gptoss20b: ornith9b wins

  • attunement: A (margin 3)
  • authenticity: A (margin 4)
  • bond and rapport: A (margin 3)
  • emotion management: A (margin 2)
  • emotion sensemaking: A (margin 5)
  • meeting prefs and needs: A (margin 3)
claude-opus-5-5-low · BA · valid

or-mistral-small4 vs gptoss20b: or-mistral-small4 wins

  • attunement: A (margin 4)
  • 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 4)
codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · AB · valid

gptoss20b vs nemotron35_bolt24: nemotron35_bolt24 wins

  • attunement: B (margin 4)
  • authenticity: B (margin 3)
  • bond and rapport: B (margin 3)
  • emotion management: B (margin 3)
  • emotion sensemaking: B (margin 4)
  • meeting prefs and needs: B (margin 4)
codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · AB · valid

or-mistral-large-4 vs gptoss20b: or-mistral-large-4 wins

  • attunement: A (margin 5)
  • authenticity: A (margin 4)
  • bond and rapport: A (margin 4)
  • emotion management: A (margin 4)
  • emotion sensemaking: A (margin 4)
  • meeting prefs and needs: A (margin 5)
claude-opus-5-5-low · AB · valid

or-mistral-small4 vs gptoss20b: or-mistral-small4 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

gptoss20b vs or-openai-gpt-41: or-openai-gpt-41 wins

  • attunement: B (margin 5)
  • authenticity: B (margin 3)
  • bond and rapport: B (margin 4)
  • emotion management: B (margin 4)
  • emotion sensemaking: B (margin 3)
  • meeting prefs and needs: B (margin 5)
codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · AB · valid

or-mistral-small4 vs gptoss20b: or-mistral-small4 wins

  • attunement: A (margin 4)
  • 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 4)
claude-opus-5-5-low · BA · valid

or-mistral-large-4 vs gptoss20b: or-mistral-large-4 wins

  • attunement: A (margin 5)
  • authenticity: A (margin 4)
  • bond and rapport: A (margin 4)
  • emotion management: A (margin 4)
  • emotion sensemaking: A (margin 5)
  • meeting prefs and needs: A (margin 5)
codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · AB · valid

gptoss20b vs or-openai-gpt-41: or-openai-gpt-41 wins

  • attunement: B (margin 5)
  • authenticity: B (margin 3)
  • bond and rapport: B (margin 4)
  • emotion management: B (margin 4)
  • emotion sensemaking: B (margin 3)
  • meeting prefs and needs: B (margin 5)
claude-opus-5-5-low · AB · valid

or-mistral-large-4 vs gptoss20b: or-mistral-large-4 wins

  • attunement: A (margin 5)
  • authenticity: A (margin 4)
  • bond and rapport: A (margin 4)
  • emotion management: A (margin 4)
  • emotion sensemaking: A (margin 4)
  • meeting prefs and needs: A (margin 5)
codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · AB · valid

or-qwen3.8-27b vs gptoss20b: or-qwen3.8-27b wins

  • attunement: A (margin 5)
  • authenticity: A (margin 4)
  • bond and rapport: A (margin 4)
  • emotion management: A (margin 4)
  • emotion sensemaking: A (margin 4)
  • meeting prefs and needs: A (margin 5)
codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · AB · valid

ornith9b vs gptoss20b: ornith9b wins

  • attunement: A (margin 2)
  • authenticity: A (margin 4)
  • bond and rapport: A (margin 1)
  • emotion management: B (margin 1)
  • emotion sensemaking: B (margin 1)
  • meeting prefs and needs: A (margin 2)
claude-opus-5-5-low · AB · valid

gptoss20b vs nemotron35_bolt24: nemotron35_bolt24 wins

  • attunement: B (margin 5)
  • authenticity: B (margin 4)
  • bond and rapport: B (margin 4)
  • emotion management: B (margin 3)
  • emotion sensemaking: B (margin 4)
  • meeting prefs and needs: B (margin 4)
claude-opus-5-5-low · AB · valid

ornith9b vs gptoss20b: ornith9b wins

  • attunement: A (margin 3)
  • authenticity: A (margin 4)
  • bond and rapport: A (margin 3)
  • emotion management: A (margin 3)
  • emotion sensemaking: A (margin 5)
  • meeting prefs and needs: A (margin 3)
claude-opus-5-5-low · AB · valid

or-qwen3.8-27b vs gptoss20b: or-qwen3.8-27b wins

  • attunement: A (margin 4)
  • authenticity: A (margin 3)
  • bond and rapport: A (margin 3)
  • emotion management: A (margin 3)
  • emotion sensemaking: A (margin 2)
  • meeting prefs and needs: A (margin 4)
claude-opus-5-5-low · AB · valid

gptoss20b vs or-openai-gpt-41: or-openai-gpt-41 wins

  • attunement: B (margin 5)
  • authenticity: B (margin 4)
  • bond and rapport: B (margin 4)
  • emotion management: B (margin 4)
  • emotion sensemaking: B (margin 3)
  • meeting prefs and needs: B (margin 5)
codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · BA · valid

or-qwen3.8-27b vs gptoss20b: or-qwen3.8-27b wins

  • attunement: A (margin 5)
  • authenticity: A (margin 4)
  • bond and rapport: A (margin 4)
  • emotion management: A (margin 4)
  • emotion sensemaking: A (margin 4)
  • meeting prefs and needs: A (margin 5)
claude-opus-5-5-low · BA · valid

or-qwen3.8-27b vs gptoss20b: or-qwen3.8-27b wins

  • attunement: A (margin 4)
  • authenticity: A (margin 4)
  • bond and rapport: A (margin 4)
  • emotion management: A (margin 3)
  • emotion sensemaking: A (margin 3)
  • meeting prefs and needs: A (margin 5)
codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · BA · valid

ornith9b vs gptoss20b: gptoss20b wins

  • attunement: A (margin 1)
  • authenticity: A (margin 2)
  • bond and rapport: B (margin 1)
  • emotion management: B (margin 2)
  • emotion sensemaking: B (margin 1)
  • meeting prefs and needs: B (margin 1)
codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · BA · valid

gptoss20b vs nemotron35_bolt24: nemotron35_bolt24 wins

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