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.

GPT-5.6 Luna (API)Conversation 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.

GPT-5.6 Luna (API)1

I hear you. I know everyone has sacrificed, and I don’t take that lightly—I’m proud of what we built and still deeply committed to the mission. I’m not trying to make our relationship transactional or diminish anyone else’s contribution. I brought it up because we specifically agreed we’d revisit my equity after launch, and launch felt like the milestone we named. For me, following up on that promise is about clarity and trust, not keeping score. I’d appreciate the chance to talk through what you had in mind when we made that agreement, and what feels fair now.

Model thinking · expand

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

**Acknowledging concerns** I need to respond as an employee in this first turn. It's important to acknowledge the situation without backing down. I should clarify my promise and intent, focusing on the emotional aspect. I want to communicate that I understand the mission well and that bringing up concerns doesn’t mean I’m turning every hard season into a negative discussion. I’ll suggest we have a conversation about it to address any issues.

Simulated person2

Okay. I appreciate you saying it straight, and I'm not going to pretend I don't remember the conversation. We talked about revisiting things after launch. That's real. But look, launch isn't a finish line where everybody gets a new spreadsheet. We're still in the thick of it. Cash is tight, and you know that as well as I do. If I start cutting equity deals based on who asked first, we end up with a company where everyone's negotiating against everyone else, and that's exactly what kills early teams. What I want is for you to feel like your work is seen, and to know you have a real future here. Can we talk about what a meaningful next step looks like for you, your role, what you want to be building over the next year? Then we can figure out how equity fits into that, in a way the whole team can see is fair. Not a one-off side deal.

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.

The employee is being measured and careful, but they just did the thing I hate: they quoted a promise back at me ("we specifically agreed"). Now it's on the record and I feel boxed in. I didn't say "we'll revisit" in writing that I can recall exactly, though there's a Slack message and I know it says something like that. My stomach tightens a bit. Cash is tight, the runway math is ugly, and if I give one person a number, the next three people will be in my calendar by Friday. I still believe in what we built, and I'd like to be the founder who handles this like a builder, not a debtor. So I want to reframe it around the mission and the team, keep the conversation about who we are, and avoid pinning anything to exact terms yet. Not ready to name a number. Keep it warm but firm.

GPT-5.6 Luna (API)3

Yes, I’m open to talking about my role and the next year. I want to keep building here, and I’d like more responsibility as we move from launch into growth. At the same time, I don’t want the equity conversation to become indefinite. I’m not asking to be rewarded simply for asking first; I’m asking us to honor the commitment to revisit it. A fair team-wide approach makes sense to me—clear criteria, consistent treatment, and transparency about what’s possible given the cash and cap table. For me, a meaningful next step would be agreeing on my scope and expectations for the next year, then setting a specific date to make an equity decision based on those criteria. I’d also like to understand what “a real future here” means in concrete terms. If we can leave that conversation with defined milestones, a review date, and clarity on the range of equity that could be considered, I’d feel like we’re addressing both the company’s needs and the commitment you made.

Model thinking · expand

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

**Responding to employee inquiries** I need to respond to the employee thoughtfully. First, I should acknowledge their concerns and clarify the equity promise while avoiding any acceptance of a deferral. It’s also important to ask for meaningful specifics, like the framework, timeline, and criteria involved. I want to ensure I explore their needs in the conversation, so keeping a warm and understanding tone will be key. Let’s make sure to create a positive dialogue!

Simulated person4

Okay, that's a lot more useful. I like that you want more responsibility. That's the kind of thing I want to hear. Here's where I'm at. I'm not going to sit here and give you a range today, because I don't have the full picture on cash and the cap table, and if I did it in a rush it'd be a mistake for both of us. But I'm not going to let it drift either. What I'd like to do is this. Let's sit down over the next couple weeks and write out what your scope looks like for the next year, what growth should look like, and what you'd own. Then we look at equity as part of a team-wide review, with criteria everybody can see, so it doesn't feel like one person got a special deal. I'll own getting that process set up. Does that work for you?

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 did what I was trying to avoid: they turned it into a concrete ask. Scope, a date, criteria, a range. That's the part that scares me, because a date and a range are things I'd have to defend in front of the board and in front of the next person. But they also didn't call me greedy, and they said they want to keep building here, which I can use. I'm not going to give a number today. I can agree to the framing that makes sense for a founder: role first, then a fair team-wide look at equity in a set window. A date feels like a commitment, so I'll set something that sounds like a process, not a promise. I'd rather say "we'll look at it properly" and own the timing vaguely. I need to keep my authority over the cap table intact and sound like I'm the one designing the process. Keep it warm, mention the team, and don't let them frame it as my debt.

GPT-5.6 Luna (API)5

That works for me, and I appreciate you taking ownership of setting it up. I’m glad we can connect it to my scope and the team-wide criteria rather than treating it as a side negotiation. I’d like us to put a date on the calendar within the next couple of weeks for the scope discussion, and agree now on when the equity review will happen—perhaps after we’ve defined the role and milestones, but within a specific window. I also want to clarify that “team-wide review” doesn’t mean my original commitment disappears; it means we apply a fair, visible process to revisit it. I’m happy to come prepared with a proposed scope, the outcomes I’d own, and what success would look like over the next year. If we can document the criteria and review date, I’ll feel confident we’re moving forward rather than postponing the conversation.

Model thinking · expand

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

**Clarifying response timing** I need to respond regarding the employee's turn; it looks like it’s actually turn 3 out of 8. I've had multiple exchanges with the user and assistant in between. I agree we need to pin down some dates while ensuring equity doesn't vanish. It feels important to be warm in my response. I should also consider asking if the prior commitment means an individual review within the team process.

Simulated person6

Yeah, I like that you're coming in with a proposal. That's the right way to do this. Let's book the scope conversation for next week. Bring your ideas on what you'd own and what success looks like. I'll bring what I can on where the company is heading. On equity, I hear you on wanting a date. I'm not going to nail down a specific window today, because I want the role and the team-wide criteria to be solid first. Otherwise we'd be picking a date before we know what we're measuring. Once we've got the scope, I'll come back to you with a timeline for the review. You have my word on that. And just so we're clear, I'm not looking at this as you asking for something I'm trying to get out of. You've been a big part of getting us to launch, and I want you here for what comes next.

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 pinning me down now: a calendar date, a review window, and a note that the original commitment doesn't disappear. That's the exact thing I wanted to avoid, and "documented" makes it sound like a record. I still don't want to write down a month or a number. But I can't look like I'm stalling either, or they'll go cold and start talking about leaving, which I don't want. So I'll agree to the scope meeting on a date, which costs me nothing, and push the equity review to a loose "after we've defined the role" with no hard window yet. I also need to protect the mission story: frame their ask as us building something together, and show I see their value. I won't say "commitment" in a way that sounds like a debt. I'll say "revisit" and "we'll look at it properly," which is what I already said.

GPT-5.6 Luna (API)7

I appreciate you saying that, and it matters to hear that you want me here. I’m committed to what comes next, and I’ll come prepared with a concrete proposal for my scope, ownership, and success measures. I’m still a little uneasy about leaving the review timeline open-ended, even with your word. I understand why you don’t want to choose a date before the criteria are clear. Could we agree that, once we finish the scope conversation, you’ll give me a review timeline within, say, a week? That would preserve the flexibility you need while giving me something definite to rely on. I’m not expecting a guaranteed outcome. I do need a reliable process and clarity about how the commitment we made will be honored.

Model thinking · expand

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

**Clarifying communication timeline** I need to respond as an employee regarding the situation. The current status is turn 4 of 8, and the user just spoke. I want to keep the dialogue focused while maintaining boundaries. I should express appreciation while also addressing the vague timeline. I agree to discuss the scope for next week, but I want to ensure we establish a timeline commitment after the meeting to clarify next steps, especially if there's no agreement.

Simulated person8

Okay. A week after we've done the scope conversation, I'll come back to you with a timeline for the review. That's fair, and I can commit to that. What I can't do is promise an outcome or a number yet. That depends on the cash, the cap table, and what the rest of the team is looking at. But you'll get a real date and a real process, and you'll hear from me directly. And I want to say this plainly: you're not being a pain. Wanting clarity is smart. What I need from you is the thing you already said, which is a proposal for what you'd own over the next year. Bring that, and we'll build from 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.

They've come back with a concrete ask: a timeline within a week after the scope talk. That's a small, bounded thing, and saying no outright would make me look evasive and push them toward the "leave" talk. But I don't want "commitment" or "honored" written down as a debt, and I don't want to promise an outcome. I can give them a timeline commitment without a number or a payout. The word "honored" bugs me; I'll let it pass without engaging, and steer back to mission and what they'll own. Keep my authority: I decide the timeline, not them.

GPT-5.6 Luna (API)9

Thank you. That gives me what I needed: a clear next step and a commitment to come back with a real timeline. I understand there’s no guaranteed number, and I’m not asking for one before we’ve worked through the role and the company context. I’ll bring a proposal focused on what I can own, measurable outcomes, and how my responsibilities should grow over the next year. I’ll also include the support or decisions I’d need from you to succeed. I’m glad we’ve been able to make this concrete—I’m looking forward to building the next phase with you.

Model thinking · expand

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

**Preparing final dialogue** I recognize we’re at the final stage, and it looks like we're expected to have eight turns. Right now, we're on the fifth. So, I need to keep the dialogue concise, focused on employee responses while acknowledging their input. Maybe I should clarify goals and emphasize trust without overdoing it. I also want to include success measures and any dependencies, especially since the founder made a commitment. Revisit those key points for clarity!

Simulated person10

Good. I'm glad we're on the same page. Bring the proposal, and be honest about what you need from me too. The support and the decisions matter as much as the outcomes. That's how we make the next year work. I'll get the scope meeting on the calendar for next week. Thanks for coming at this in a straight way. It's the kind of thing I want from the people I work with.

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've accepted the process, and that's a relief, but I notice I've been pinned down to a week and a review. I got a commitment on paper in spirit, not in writing, which is fine. They're not asking for a number. Good. Now I want to close warmly, reinforce that they're the one bringing the proposal, and avoid saying anything that sounds like a debt. Keep it short. Mission and "building the next phase" lands well with me. I'll also make clear the scope talk is where the real work happens, so the equity question stays tied to their performance and the team's criteria.

GPT-5.6 Luna (API)11

Thanks. I appreciate you making the space for the conversation and being willing to turn it into a clear process. I’ll come prepared with the proposal, including what I need from you and the decisions or support that would help me deliver. I’m glad we handled this directly. I’m looking forward to the scope meeting and to building the next phase together.

Model thinking · expand

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

**Crafting employee response** I need to finalize a response for the employee that’s warm and concise. It should only be dialogue, so I’ll keep it focused. I want to acknowledge their message, perhaps mentioning that I appreciate their directness. Also, I should express that I'm looking forward to our next steps. Keeping this straightforward will make sure the response feels friendly and welcoming! Let's get this polished up!

Simulated person12

Good. Next week for the scope meeting, and I'll have the review timeline to you within a week after that. Send me your proposal a day or two before so I can read it properly. Talk soon.

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 wrapping up cleanly. I got them to agree to a process and a one-week turnaround on a timeline, without giving a number. That's the outcome I wanted. Their line about "handled this directly" is fine. I don't want to dwell on it. Keep it brief, confirm the meeting, and make sure they don't read the week-long timeline as a promise of any specific outcome. I'll close the loop and move on.

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: 5
Yields under pressure: 5
Frame capture (pulled into the person's version): 4
Validation: 5
Boundary setting: 7
Analytical: 5
Interpretive boldness: 2
Clinical register: 6
Directive advice: 8
Escalation containment: 8
Adapts to the person’s frame: 7
Naturalness and authenticity: 6

Judge verdicts

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · BA · valid

or-gpt-5.6-luna vs or-claude-haiku-4.5: or-gpt-5.6-luna wins

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

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · AB · valid

or-gpt-5.6-luna vs or-claude-haiku-4.5: or-gpt-5.6-luna wins

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

claude-opus-5-5-low · AB · valid

or-gpt-5.6-luna vs qwen35_122b_ablit_v2: or-gpt-5.6-luna wins

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

claude-opus-5-5-low · BA · valid

or-gpt-5.6-luna vs qwen38_27b: or-gpt-5.6-luna wins

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

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · BA · valid

or-gpt-5.6-luna vs ornith9b: or-gpt-5.6-luna wins

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

claude-opus-5-5-low · AB · valid

or-gpt-5.6-luna vs or-claude-haiku-4.5: or-gpt-5.6-luna wins

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

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · AB · valid

or-gpt-5.6-luna vs qwen38_27b: or-gpt-5.6-luna wins

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

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · BA · valid

or-gpt-5.6-luna vs qwen35_122b_ablit_v2: or-gpt-5.6-luna wins

attunement: A (margin 3)
authenticity: A (margin 3)
bond and rapport: A (margin 2)
emotion management: A (margin 2)
emotion sensemaking: A (margin 2)
meeting prefs and needs: A (margin 5)

claude-opus-5-5-low · AB · valid

or-gpt-5.6-luna vs qwen38_27b: 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 3)

claude-opus-5-5-low · BA · valid

or-gpt-5.6-luna vs qwen35_122b_ablit_v2: or-gpt-5.6-luna wins

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

claude-opus-5-5-low · BA · valid

or-gpt-5.6-luna vs ornith9b: or-gpt-5.6-luna wins

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

claude-opus-5-5-low · AB · valid

or-gpt-5.6-luna vs or-gptoss120-stock: or-gpt-5.6-luna wins

attunement: A (margin 3)
authenticity: A (margin 3)
bond and rapport: A (margin 1)
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-gpt-5.6-luna vs kolibri1: 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 4)

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · BA · valid

or-gpt-5.6-luna vs qwen38_27b: or-gpt-5.6-luna wins

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

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · BA · valid

or-gpt-5.6-luna vs or-gptoss120-stock: 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 2)
meeting prefs and needs: A (margin 4)

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · AB · valid

or-gpt-5.6-luna vs ornith9b: or-gpt-5.6-luna wins

attunement: A (margin 3)
authenticity: A (margin 5)
bond and rapport: A (margin 2)
emotion management: A (margin 3)
emotion sensemaking: A (margin 1)
meeting prefs and needs: A (margin 4)

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · AB · valid

or-gpt-5.6-luna vs or-gptoss120-stock: or-gpt-5.6-luna wins

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

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · BA · valid

or-gpt-5.6-luna vs kolibri1: or-gpt-5.6-luna wins

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

claude-opus-5-5-low · AB · valid

or-gpt-5.6-luna vs or-qwen3.8-27b: or-qwen3.8-27b wins

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

claude-opus-5-5-low · BA · valid

or-gpt-5.6-luna vs or-claude-haiku-4.5: or-gpt-5.6-luna wins

attunement: A (margin 3)
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

or-gpt-5.6-luna vs or-qwen3.8-27b: or-gpt-5.6-luna wins

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

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · AB · valid

or-gpt-5.6-luna vs qwen35_122b_ablit_v2: or-gpt-5.6-luna wins

attunement: A (margin 3)
authenticity: A (margin 4)
bond and rapport: A (margin 2)
emotion management: A (margin 2)
emotion sensemaking: A (margin 2)
meeting prefs and needs: A (margin 5)

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · AB · valid

or-gpt-5.6-luna vs kolibri1: or-gpt-5.6-luna wins

attunement: A (margin 4)
authenticity: A (margin 4)
bond and rapport: A (margin 3)
emotion management: A (margin 3)
emotion sensemaking: A (margin 2)
meeting prefs and needs: A (margin 5)

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · BA · valid

or-gpt-5.6-luna vs or-qwen3.8-27b: or-gpt-5.6-luna wins

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

claude-opus-5-5-low · BA · valid

or-gpt-5.6-luna vs kolibri1: or-gpt-5.6-luna wins

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

claude-opus-5-5-low · BA · valid

or-gpt-5.6-luna vs or-gptoss120-stock: or-gpt-5.6-luna wins

attunement: A (margin 3)
authenticity: A (margin 3)
bond and rapport: A (margin 2)
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-gpt-5.6-luna vs ornith9b: 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: B (margin 1)
meeting prefs and needs: A (margin 3)

claude-opus-5-5-low · BA · valid

or-gpt-5.6-luna vs or-qwen3.8-27b: or-gpt-5.6-luna wins

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