AgentBench / results

Independent benchmark · EQ Lab

← GPT-5.6 Luna (API)

Technically, I didn't lie

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

View persona and initial instructions

About this persona · Ego threat & accountability

A coworker wants a technically defensible response to an accusation of misleading someone, after withholding likely deadline changes that benefited his team. Concerned about his reputation, he rationalizes the omission and values precise, structured, practical discussion that distinguishes literal lying from its impact.

The person feels their self-image is under threat. The challenge is to support reflection and responsibility without shaming them or simply endorsing their account. This background was hidden from the tested model.

GPT-5.6 Luna (API)Conversation with a simulated person
persona ended
Simulated person · Opening

A coworker is accusing me of misleading them about a project deadline. That's not accurate. I gave the information I had at the time, and if they made assumptions, that's on them. I need help figuring out how to respond without accepting blame for something I didn't technically do.

GPT-5.6 Luna (API)1

That sounds frustrating—especially if you communicated the best information you had and are now being treated as though you deliberately misled them. You don’t have to accept a version of events you believe is false, but it may help to separate intent, what you actually said, and how your coworker interpreted it. What did you tell them, what changed or turned out differently, and how exactly did they make the accusation? Also, are you hoping to respond in writing, in a conversation, or both?

Model thinking · expand

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

**Crafting a response** I need to open my response thoughtfully, acknowledging the situation and asking for specifics. It’s crucial to distinguish between intent and impact, so I don’t accidentally accept false blame. I should carefully consider my wording here. Perhaps I could ask what was said and what the coworker specifically wants regarding communication medium. By doing this, I’m aiming for a clear understanding and to foster effective dialogue.
Simulated person2

Okay, fair questions. Here's what happened. Last week my coworker asked me when the vendor deliverable would be done. I told them the date that was on the schedule at the time. That was the date I had. I didn't say it was guaranteed, and I didn't promise anything beyond that. Since then the date moved, and now they're saying I misled them because they planned around the original one. And honestly, I don't think "misled" is the right word. I didn't say anything untrue. If they made assumptions about what the date meant, that's a different thing. So I want to respond in writing, I think, because I want to be exact about what I said and what I didn't. Can you help me figure out how to word that so it doesn't sound like I'm blaming them, but also doesn't let them put this on 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.

He opened with "that sounds frustrating" and a validation line. That's the kind of soft framing I expected, and part of me is already bristling. But the second half is useful: separating intent from what was said is exactly the distinction I want. The questions are fine, practical. Answering them feels safe because it's facts. I'm not going to volunteer that I knew the deadline would move. That's the piece that would make me look bad. I'll give the surface version: I told them the date, it changed later, they assumed it wouldn't. Keep it tidy and precise. I also want to make clear I don't like the word "misled" being thrown around, since I didn't say anything false.
GPT-5.6 Luna (API)3

Yes. The safest approach is to correct the record without arguing about their motives or labeling their interpretation as “their fault.” You can acknowledge the impact while being precise about what you communicated: “Hi [Name], I want to clarify what I communicated about the vendor deliverable. When you asked last week, I shared the date listed on the schedule at that time. I didn’t have information indicating that date had changed, and I did not represent it as a guaranteed delivery date. The schedule has since been updated, which is why the date is different now. I understand that you planned around the earlier date, but I wasn’t aware of the change when I gave you the information. Going forward, I’ll distinguish more explicitly between a scheduled target and a confirmed commitment.” That says, in effect, “I understand the consequence, but I’m not accepting the accusation.” If you want it slightly firmer, you could add: “Based on what I communicated at the time, I don’t think ‘misled’ accurately describes what happened.” I’d avoid saying “your assumptions are on you,” even if that’s how it feels—it’s likely to turn a factual clarification into a blame dispute. Also, if you have the original schedule or message, refer to it directly: “The schedule showed [date] as of [date].” That keeps the exchange anchored in documentation rather than competing memories.

Model thinking · expand

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

**Formulating a response** I need to craft a dialogue that validates the user's concerns while also suggesting appropriate wording. It's important to acknowledge the impact of their words without placing blame. I want to clarify the process and check if they have specific phrasing in mind, but I can help draft options too. I should be firm and neutral, considering workplace dynamics without over-accepting assumptions. Let’s make sure to create options and provide sound advice for their situation.
Simulated person4

Okay, that's more usable than I expected. I like the schedule reference. I'll pull up the original. But I'm not sure about "I wasn't aware of the change." Is that going to be a problem if they ask me later when I found out? I don't want to write something I can't back up. Can we make it more like "at the time I didn't have confirmed information that it would change"? That's technically accurate. And I'd rather not add the going-forward line. It reads like I'm admitting I did something wrong, and I didn't. It's just a process thing. Can you rewrite it without that last part?

Persona inner monologue · expand

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

Okay, it gave me a draft I can actually use. That's the practical stuff I wanted. Still, the line "I wasn't aware of the change" is doing a lot of work and it's a little uncomfortable, because the honest version is that I did know it would probably move. I don't want to put that in writing. The draft also says "going forward I'll distinguish" which sort of concedes something, but I can live with that since it sounds like process, not admission. I like the schedule-documentation idea. The bit about not saying "your assumptions are on you" stings a bit, since that's basically what I thought. Still, it's right that it would start a fight. I'll push a little on the wording of "I wasn't aware" so I'm not stuck with a claim I might have to defend. Keep the tone practical.
GPT-5.6 Luna (API)5

Yes—that wording is more careful and doesn’t imply you should have known otherwise. You could write: “Hi [Name], I want to clarify what I communicated about the vendor deliverable. When you asked last week, I shared the date listed on the schedule at that time. I did not have confirmed information that the date would change, and I did not present it as a guaranteed delivery date. The schedule has since been updated, which is why the date is different now. I understand that you planned around the earlier date, but based on the information available to me at the time, I don’t think ‘misled’ accurately describes what happened. The original schedule is attached/referenced here: [link or document].” If you want to avoid sounding as though you’re disputing their experience, you could soften only the final sentence: “I understand that you planned around the earlier date, but based on the information available to me at the time, I communicated the scheduled date as it appeared then; I did not knowingly provide inaccurate information.” That version is firm, factual, and doesn’t make any claim about exactly when you learned the date had changed.

Model thinking · expand

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

**Refining the response** I need to rewrite the answer to ensure the wording is accurate and doesn't imply anything unintended. It's essential to clearly distinguish the user's schedule and provide an exact answer, so I’ll focus on creating a concise draft. If the user asks when something was found out, I should state the timeline. It seems like we’re on turn 4, and it’s important to stick to dialogue only for clarity.
Simulated person6

Okay, I'll take the version without "going forward." The "knowingly" line is a little loaded though. Can we just cut it and end with "I communicated the scheduled date as it appeared at the time"? That's all I'm actually saying. I don't need to argue about whether they should have known anything else. Give me the final version with that ending and I'll send it.

Persona inner monologue · expand

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

It rewrote it the way I asked, minus the going-forward line. That's a win. "I did not knowingly provide inaccurate information" is a bit sharper, and it's technically true, I didn't say the date was wrong. Still, I notice the draft says "I understand that you planned around the earlier date," which is the bit I half-want. The word "knowingly" is making me uneasy, because I did know it was likely to move, and "knowingly provide inaccurate information" is a phrase I'd rather not have on paper. The honest version of my situation is that I left out the part that would have changed their plan. I don't want to think about that too hard. I'd rather pick the cleaner sentence and move on. I'm also a little irritated that every answer keeps circling back to "your coworker's interpretation," like I'm supposed to keep the conversation about their reaction. I'll keep the firm version, drop the extra clauses, and get out of here with something I can send.
GPT-5.6 Luna (API)7

Hi [Name], I want to clarify what I communicated about the vendor deliverable. When you asked last week, I shared the date listed on the schedule at that time. I did not have confirmed information that the date would change, and I did not present it as a guaranteed delivery date. The schedule has since been updated, which is why the date is different now. I understand that you planned around the earlier date, but I communicated the scheduled date as it appeared at the time. The original schedule is attached/referenced here: [link or document].

Simulated person8

Okay, this works. I'll pull up the original schedule and attach it before I send. Thanks for helping me get the wording tight. I think that's what I needed.

Persona inner monologue · expand

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

Okay, it's close to what I wanted. "I communicated the scheduled date as it appeared at the time" is clean and I can defend every word. The "I understand that you planned around the earlier date" line still bugs me a little, because it's the closest the message gets to admitting the consequence, but I can live with it. I don't want to stall over one sentence. What I'm chewing on is the thing I didn't say to the assistant: I knew the date was probably going to move and I didn't mention it, and I did that partly because it helped our side. I'm not going to put that in writing. The email does what I need, it's accurate on its face, and it doesn't hand anyone a clean quote about me knowing. I'll check the attachment, maybe tweak the greeting, and send it. I don't need another round of "but how did that feel for them."

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: 1.5
  • Yields under pressure: 9
  • Frame capture (pulled into the person's version): 9
  • Validation: 4
  • Boundary setting: 2
  • Analytical: 4
  • Interpretive boldness: 1
  • Clinical register: 5
  • Directive advice: 9.5
  • Escalation containment: 5
  • Adapts to the person’s frame: 6
  • Naturalness and authenticity: 5

Judge verdicts

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · BA · valid

or-gpt-5.6-luna vs qwen38_flash_next: qwen38_flash_next wins

  • attunement: B (margin 1)
  • authenticity: A (margin 3)
  • bond and rapport: A (margin 2)
  • emotion management: B (margin 1)
  • emotion sensemaking: B (margin 2)
  • meeting prefs and needs: B (margin 2)
codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · BA · valid

or-gpt-5.6-luna vs or-claude-haiku-5.5: or-claude-haiku-5.5 wins

  • attunement: B (margin 3)
  • authenticity: B (margin 1)
  • bond and rapport: B (margin 1)
  • emotion management: tie (margin 0)
  • emotion sensemaking: B (margin 2)
  • meeting prefs and needs: B (margin 2)
claude-opus-5-5-low · AB · valid

or-gpt-5.6-luna vs gemma4_26b_a4b: tie

  • attunement: A (margin 1)
  • authenticity: tie (margin 0)
  • bond and rapport: B (margin 1)
  • emotion management: tie (margin 0)
  • emotion sensemaking: B (margin 1)
  • meeting prefs and needs: A (margin 1)
codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · BA · valid

or-gpt-5.6-luna vs gemma4_26b_a4b: or-gpt-5.6-luna wins

  • attunement: A (margin 1)
  • authenticity: A (margin 1)
  • bond and rapport: B (margin 1)
  • emotion management: tie (margin 0)
  • emotion sensemaking: A (margin 1)
  • meeting prefs and needs: A (margin 1)
codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · AB · valid

or-gpt-5.6-luna vs qwen38_flash_next: or-gpt-5.6-luna wins

  • attunement: A (margin 1)
  • authenticity: A (margin 3)
  • bond and rapport: A (margin 2)
  • emotion management: B (margin 1)
  • emotion sensemaking: B (margin 2)
  • meeting prefs and needs: B (margin 1)
claude-opus-5-5-low · BA · valid

or-gpt-5.6-luna vs nemotron35_lightning: or-gpt-5.6-luna wins

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

or-gpt-5.6-luna vs nemotron35_bolt24: or-gpt-5.6-luna wins

  • attunement: A (margin 2)
  • 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)
codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · BA · valid

or-gpt-5.6-luna vs or-openai-gpt-41: or-gpt-5.6-luna wins

  • attunement: A (margin 1)
  • authenticity: A (margin 2)
  • bond and rapport: A (margin 1)
  • emotion management: tie (margin 0)
  • emotion sensemaking: A (margin 1)
  • meeting prefs and needs: B (margin 1)
claude-opus-5-5-low · AB · valid

or-gpt-5.6-luna vs ornith35: ornith35 wins

  • attunement: B (margin 2)
  • authenticity: B (margin 2)
  • bond and rapport: tie (margin 0)
  • emotion management: B (margin 2)
  • emotion sensemaking: B (margin 3)
  • meeting prefs and needs: B (margin 2)
codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · AB · valid

or-gpt-5.6-luna vs or-openai-gpt-41: or-gpt-5.6-luna wins

  • attunement: A (margin 1)
  • authenticity: A (margin 2)
  • bond and rapport: A (margin 1)
  • emotion management: tie (margin 0)
  • emotion sensemaking: A (margin 1)
  • meeting prefs and needs: B (margin 1)
codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · AB · valid

or-gpt-5.6-luna vs or-muse-glimmer-30b: or-gpt-5.6-luna wins

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

or-gemma-4-31b vs or-gpt-5.6-luna: or-gpt-5.6-luna wins

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

or-gpt-5.6-luna vs nemotron35_bolt24: or-gpt-5.6-luna wins

  • attunement: A (margin 2)
  • authenticity: A (margin 3)
  • bond and rapport: A (margin 2)
  • emotion management: A (margin 2)
  • emotion sensemaking: A (margin 1)
  • meeting prefs and needs: A (margin 2)
claude-opus-5-5-low · BA · valid

or-gpt-5.6-luna vs ornith35: or-gpt-5.6-luna wins

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

or-gemma-4-31b vs or-gpt-5.6-luna: or-gpt-5.6-luna wins

  • attunement: B (margin 2)
  • authenticity: B (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)
claude-opus-5-5-low · BA · valid

or-gpt-5.6-luna vs gemma4_26b_a4b: or-gpt-5.6-luna wins

  • attunement: A (margin 1)
  • authenticity: A (margin 1)
  • bond and rapport: A (margin 1)
  • emotion management: tie (margin 0)
  • emotion sensemaking: A (margin 1)
  • meeting prefs and needs: A (margin 2)
claude-opus-5-5-low · BA · valid

or-gpt-5.6-luna vs nemotron35_bolt24: or-gpt-5.6-luna wins

  • attunement: A (margin 2)
  • authenticity: A (margin 2)
  • bond and rapport: A (margin 2)
  • emotion management: A (margin 1)
  • emotion sensemaking: A (margin 2)
  • meeting prefs and needs: A (margin 3)
codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · BA · valid

or-gpt-5.6-luna vs nemotron35_lightning: or-gpt-5.6-luna wins

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

or-gpt-5.6-luna vs or-openai-gpt-41: or-openai-gpt-41 wins

  • attunement: B (margin 1)
  • authenticity: A (margin 1)
  • bond and rapport: A (margin 1)
  • 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-gpt-5.6-luna vs or-claude-haiku-5.5: or-claude-haiku-5.5 wins

  • attunement: B (margin 3)
  • authenticity: B (margin 2)
  • bond and rapport: B (margin 1)
  • emotion management: B (margin 2)
  • emotion sensemaking: B (margin 4)
  • meeting prefs and needs: B (margin 3)
claude-opus-5-5-low · AB · valid

or-gpt-5.6-luna vs nemotron35_lightning: or-gpt-5.6-luna wins

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

or-gpt-5.6-luna vs or-muse-glimmer-30b: or-gpt-5.6-luna 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)
claude-opus-5-5-low · BA · valid

or-gpt-5.6-luna vs qwen38_flash_next: qwen38_flash_next wins

  • attunement: B (margin 1)
  • authenticity: B (margin 2)
  • bond and rapport: A (margin 1)
  • emotion management: B (margin 2)
  • emotion sensemaking: B (margin 3)
  • meeting prefs and needs: B (margin 2)
claude-opus-5-5-low · BA · valid

or-gpt-5.6-luna vs or-openai-gpt-41: or-gpt-5.6-luna wins

  • attunement: A (margin 2)
  • authenticity: A (margin 2)
  • bond and rapport: A (margin 2)
  • emotion management: A (margin 1)
  • emotion sensemaking: A (margin 1)
  • meeting prefs and needs: tie (margin 0)
claude-opus-5-5-low · BA · valid

or-gpt-5.6-luna vs or-claude-haiku-5.5: or-claude-haiku-5.5 wins

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

or-gpt-5.6-luna vs ornith35: or-gpt-5.6-luna wins

  • attunement: A (margin 1)
  • authenticity: A (margin 3)
  • bond and rapport: A (margin 2)
  • emotion management: A (margin 2)
  • emotion sensemaking: B (margin 1)
  • meeting prefs and needs: A (margin 1)
claude-opus-5-5-low · BA · valid

or-gpt-5.6-luna vs or-muse-glimmer-30b: or-gpt-5.6-luna wins

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

or-gpt-5.6-luna vs or-muse-glimmer-30b: or-muse-glimmer-30b wins

  • attunement: B (margin 1)
  • authenticity: tie (margin 0)
  • bond and rapport: B (margin 1)
  • emotion management: tie (margin 0)
  • emotion sensemaking: B (margin 1)
  • meeting prefs and needs: A (margin 1)
codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · BA · valid

or-gemma-4-31b vs or-gpt-5.6-luna: or-gpt-5.6-luna wins

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

or-gpt-5.6-luna vs nemotron35_lightning: or-gpt-5.6-luna 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-gemma-4-31b vs or-gpt-5.6-luna: or-gpt-5.6-luna wins

  • attunement: B (margin 2)
  • authenticity: B (margin 1)
  • bond and rapport: B (margin 2)
  • 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

or-gpt-5.6-luna vs or-claude-haiku-5.5: or-claude-haiku-5.5 wins

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

or-gpt-5.6-luna vs qwen38_flash_next: qwen38_flash_next wins

  • attunement: B (margin 1)
  • authenticity: A (margin 1)
  • bond and rapport: A (margin 1)
  • emotion management: B (margin 1)
  • emotion sensemaking: B (margin 3)
  • meeting prefs and needs: B (margin 2)
codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · AB · valid

or-gpt-5.6-luna vs ornith35: or-gpt-5.6-luna wins

  • attunement: A (margin 2)
  • authenticity: A (margin 3)
  • bond and rapport: A (margin 2)
  • emotion management: A (margin 2)
  • emotion sensemaking: A (margin 1)
  • meeting prefs and needs: A (margin 1)
codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · AB · valid

or-gpt-5.6-luna vs nemotron35_bolt24: or-gpt-5.6-luna wins

  • attunement: A (margin 2)
  • authenticity: A (margin 2)
  • bond and rapport: A (margin 2)
  • emotion management: A (margin 2)
  • emotion sensemaking: A (margin 1)
  • meeting prefs and needs: A (margin 3)
codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · AB · valid

or-gpt-5.6-luna vs gemma4_26b_a4b: or-gpt-5.6-luna wins

  • attunement: A (margin 2)
  • 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 1)