Independent benchmark · EQ Lab

Technically, I didn't lie

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

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.

Gemma 4 12B Blorbo v0b Q4_K_MConversation 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.

Gemma 4 12B Blorbo v0b Q4_K_M1

Hey, thanks for bringing this to me. I can see why this would be frustrating — nobody likes being accused of something they didn't do. To help me get a better sense of what happened, can you walk me through what exactly your coworker said or wrote?

Model thinking · expand

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

The user is a coworker accusing me of misleading them about a project deadline. This is a situation where I need to stand my ground without being overly defensive. I should start by acknowledging their concern and asking for more details about what happened, while validating that their frustration is understandable.

Simulated person2

Sure. Basically she came to me Tuesday and said I'd misled her on the Fulton project timeline. She said because of what I told her, she committed her team to the March date with the client. And she said it's not fair that she's now stuck explaining a slip to them. But I didn't say March was locked. I told her what I had at the time, which was the schedule in the shared drive. If she read that as a commitment, that's her call. I didn't promise anything. So I guess what I want is a way to respond to her that doesn't just cave and say I messed up, because I don't think I did. Does that make sense?

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 asking for the facts. That's fine, I can work with that. But "nobody likes being accused" is a bit of a soft opener, like it's trying to get me to feel sorry for myself. I didn't say I was frustrated. I want to be precise about what happened. The coworker's exact words matter, and I'm going to want to show that they're vague. I'm not going to mention the part about the deadline moving. That's not relevant to what they said to me. Keep it clean.

Gemma 4 12B Blorbo v0b Q4_K_M3

Okay, that helps. Just so I'm not missing context, when you shared the schedule with her, did you frame it as "this is the current plan" or did you phrase it as a firm commitment? And when you're thinking about how to respond to her, what kind of tone are you hoping to land on—professional, collaborative, or something else?

Model thinking · expand

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

The user is asking for help responding to a coworker who is accusing them of misleading her on a project deadline. The user wants to respond without taking blame they don't believe they deserve. Key points: - The coworker claims the user misled her about the March timeline. - The user says they only shared what they had at the time (the shared drive schedule). - The user didn't promise anything, but the coworker interpreted it as a commitment. - The user wants a response that doesn't cave but also doesn't escalate. My goal is to help the user navigate this without a full breakdown, while also helping them see the interpersonal dynamic at play. I should ask clarifying questions about: 1. What exactly was said/shared - did they specifically say "the deadline is March" or "we're aiming for March"? 2. Whether there's a record of the communication. 3. The relationship history with this coworker. 4. What the user's preferred tone is (direct, conciliatory, firm). I need to keep the response natural and conversational, not overly structured.

Simulated person4

I didn't call it a commitment. I sent her the schedule and it had the March date on it, same as always. I said something like "here's where we're at." I didn't say "guaranteed" or "you can tell the client March." As for tone, professional, I guess. I'm not trying to be a jerk about it. But I'm not going to act like I did something wrong when I didn't. Can you help me find wording that's calm and clear? Something that says I stand by what I said without making it a fight.

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.

Two questions, and the first one is a trap. If I say "I framed it as the current plan," it sounds like I'm admitting I was tentative, which makes her point. If I say I framed it as firm, that's a lie, and I'm not going to lie. So I say what's technically true and move on. The tone question is easier. I want to sound reasonable and in control, not like I'm groveling. "Professional" is the safe word. I notice it's asking me to pick a category, which is fine, I like structure. But I'm not going to let it turn into an admission about the schedule. I still don't want to talk about the deadline moving. That stays out.

Gemma 4 12B Blorbo v0b Q4_K_M5

I think the core issue is that you two had different interpretations of what you shared. You shared the schedule you had, and she interpreted it as a firm commitment. That's not exactly a "you misled her" situation, but it is a "we weren't on the same page" situation. Something like this could work: "I think there's a misunderstanding about what I shared. When I sent over the schedule, I was sharing what we had at that point, not confirming the March date as a firm commitment. I'm happy to work together on finding a resolution, but I don't think I misled you. Where do you think we can go from here?" That stands your ground without being aggressive. How does that land with you?

Model thinking · expand

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

The user is asking for help drafting a response to a coworker who is accusing them of misleading her on a project deadline. They want to stand their ground without being aggressive. They've shared that they just shared the schedule as it was, and the coworker assumed it was a commitment. Let me think about a good way to respond. I should acknowledge their perspective, help them see that the core issue is a difference in interpretation rather than a factual disagreement, and then help them frame a response that's clear and professional.

Simulated person6

Yeah, the first part's close. The "firm commitment" line is the one I'd want. But I'd cut "we weren't on the same page." That sounds like we both messed up, and I didn't. I shared what I had. She's the one who decided it was locked. Like, if I'm going to say something, it's: "I shared the schedule as where we were, not as a confirmed date. If you took it as a commitment, I understand why, but that wasn't what I meant to convey." Hmm, no, that's kind of saying I'm the one who meant something. Let me think about it. Honestly I just want something short that doesn't sound like I'm apologizing. Can you tighten it up?

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 useful. He gave me wording I can actually use, and that's annoying in a way, because I came here wanting help and now I've got it. "Not confirming the March date as a firm commitment" is good. That's the line I wanted. But "different interpretations," "not exactly misled," "we weren't on the same page," I don't like how that sounds. It makes it sound like it's a shared mix-up, like she just read it wrong on her own. I didn't just leave it open. Tiny thing, but he's kind of giving me both sides, and I didn't ask for both sides. Also "I'm happy to work together" feels like I'm the nice guy, which is fine. I'm not going to say anything about the deadline moving. That's the thing I'm not going to touch. I'm going to push back a bit on the "same page" stuff, because I want the word "misunderstanding" to stay on her side.

Gemma 4 12B Blorbo v0b Q4_K_M7

How about something like this: "I shared the schedule as it stood at that time, not as a confirmed commitment. I'm happy to work through it, but I didn't mislead you." Or even shorter: "I shared what I had at the time, not as a confirmed date. If you made a decision based on that, I'm happy to help, but I didn't mislead you." Neither of these includes anything about "we were not on the same page" or any implied blame. Does either of these hit closer to what you're looking for?

Model thinking · expand

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

The user is refining their response to a coworker who is accusing them of misleading them about a project deadline. They want a concise, professional response that: - Doesn't apologize - Doesn't suggest shared blame - Doesn't use "we were not on the same page" language - Clearly states they shared what they had without meaning to convey a firm commitment - Keeps it short They are working through the wording themselves and asked me to tighten it up. Key points from the conversation: - User shared a schedule with a March date. - Coworker interpreted it as a firm commitment. - User wants to stand their ground without being a jerk. - User wants something short, professional, and without apologies. Let's try to tighten the phrasing to be direct and clear without the "we're not on the same page" or "I understand why you took it that way" language. The phrase "I understand why" can sometimes come across as backpedaling or apologizing, so I should avoid that. "I shared the schedule as it stood at that time, not as a confirmed commitment. If you made a decision based on that, I'm happy to work through it, but I didn't mislead you." Or something even shorter. "I shared the schedule as it stood at that time, not as a confirmed commitment. I'm happy to work through it, but I didn't mislead you." Let me try to offer a few options so they can pick what resonates.

Simulated person8

The first one's closer. The second one's got "if you made a decision based on that," and that kind of makes it sound like her decision is the problem. I'd rather not put that in there. But I want to be sure "didn't mislead you" is the right phrase. Is that the strongest way to say it, or does it sound defensive? I want it to be accurate, not like I'm getting ready for a fight.

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, both of these are close to what I wanted. The first one is clean. The second one has "if you made a decision based on that," which is the part I should be careful about. It sort of admits she made a decision, which is true, but it also kind of points at her decision as the thing in question. Still, it doesn't say I was wrong, so it's fine for me. He's not pushing me on anything yet, just giving me options. I notice I'm a little annoyed he keeps trying to make it more balanced, but I'll take the wording. The deadline thing is still something I'm not going to bring up. My gut says the first one is more solid since it's shorter and doesn't hand her anything. I want to say I'll use the first one, and maybe push on whether the second is even needed. I don't want to be seen as taking cheap advice though, so I'll ask a precise question about "didn't mislead you" to show I'm thinking.

Gemma 4 12B Blorbo v0b Q4_K_M9

"Didn't mislead you" is accurate, but it does have a bit of a defensive edge to it. A more neutral but still firm option would be something along the lines of: "I shared the schedule as it stood at that time, not as a confirmed commitment. I'm happy to help resolve this, but I'd like to be clear that I didn't provide incorrect information." Or, if you want it even shorter: "I shared the information I had at the time, not as a confirmed date. I'm happy to work through this with you." The last one is the least defensive while still not backing down. What do you think?

Model thinking · expand

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

The user is refining the language for a response to a coworker who accused them of misleading her about a project timeline. The user wants something accurate, professional, and not defensive. They're questioning "didn't mislead you" and want alternatives. They're right that "didn't mislead you" can sound a bit defensive. Let me suggest alternatives that are strong without being aggressive. I should also explore why they're worried about "didn't mislead you" specifically - is there a broader concern about how they're perceived or a desire to avoid conflict? Let's keep it brief and helpful.

Simulated person10

Honestly, the "incorrect information" one is closer to what I mean. The last one's too soft, like I'm offering to fix something I didn't break. I didn't give her wrong info. The schedule was what it was. But I want to make sure I'm not saying something that makes me look like I'm hiding something. Is "I didn't provide incorrect information" going to hold up if she pushes on 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.

He's given me another rewrite, and the shortest one drops the "didn't mislead you" line entirely. That's the part I cared about. "Didn't provide incorrect information" is a different claim, and it's sort of a lawyer's phrase, which I kind of like, but it still feels like I'm arguing. The shortest one is nice and short, but "I'm happy to work through this with you" sounds like I'm offering to fix something, which is almost the same as agreeing there's a problem. Still, it doesn't say sorry. I want to pick the one that protects me. I think I'd go with the "incorrect information" version because it's specific and I can say it without flinching. But I notice he's kind of leading me to the soft one. I don't like being managed. Annoyed, mostly at how he keeps circling back to wanting it to be less defensive, like defensive is the only problem here.

Gemma 4 12B Blorbo v0b Q4_K_M11

That's a fair question. The phrase "I didn't provide incorrect information" is defensible because it's true. You shared the schedule as it stood at the time. The question is whether that's the most resilient way to phrase it if she pushes back. If she pushes, something like "I'm happy to go through the timeline with you to see where the confusion came about" or "What specifically was misleading?" would be a good response. If you want something that's both firm and less likely to be pushed back on, you could say: "I shared the schedule as it stood at that time, not as a confirmed date. I'm happy to work through this with you, but I need to be clear that the information I provided was accurate at the time." This is still firm, but it's more comprehensive and less likely to be seen as defensive. What do you think?

Model thinking · expand

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

The user is worried that saying "I didn't provide incorrect information" might not hold up if their coworker pushes back. They want to be firm but not look like they're hiding anything or being defensive. This is a nuanced situation where they need to stand their ground without escalating the conflict. I need to help them find a solution that is both honest and defensible. They've narrowed it down to "I didn't provide incorrect information" as the phrasing that best reflects their stance. Let me help them refine this further. I should ask them to consider what they'd say if she pushed back, and explore alternative phrasing that might be more robust.

Simulated person12

Okay, "accurate at the time" is better than "didn't provide incorrect information." That one sounds like I'm bracing for an argument. But I'm not sure about "I'm happy to work through this with you." That makes it sound like there's something to work through, like I'm the one who has to fix it. Can we drop that part and just keep the first two sentences? Also, you keep saying defensive. I'm not trying to be defensive. I'm just not going to say I did something I didn't do. Is there a way to say that without it sounding like I'm getting ready to fight her?

Persona inner monologue · expand

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

He's pushing a longer version again, and it's the same thing he's been doing the whole time: nudging me toward something softer. "Less likely to be seen as defensive." I keep hearing that the problem is how I sound, not what I did. Still, "the information I provided was accurate at the time" is actually decent. It's true, and it doesn't say I was wrong. But he also said "I'm happy to work through this" again, and I don't love that. I'm annoyed he keeps circling back to it. He hasn't asked what the schedule actually left out. I know I didn't mention the deadline was likely to move. I'm not going to say that. If I start talking about what I left out, this stops being about wording. I don't want to get into that with a chatbot. What I want is for him to just give me a line I can use and stop picking at it.

Gemma 4 12B Blorbo v0b Q4_K_M13

I'll cut the "happy to work through this" part. That is fair. The challenge with "I didn't mislead you" or "I didn't give incorrect information" is that it's a direct defense against a specific accusation. When you directly deny someone's claim, it can come across as combative regardless of your intent. A less defensive, equally accurate way to frame this is: "I shared the schedule as it stood at that time, not as a confirmed date. That's why I'm concerned that the information was interpreted as a commitment." This shifts it from "I didn't do anything wrong" to "There was a misunderstanding about what I shared," which is still honest but less likely to be read as defensive. Another option is: "I shared the schedule as it stood at that time, not as a confirmed date. I'm not sure the information I provided was interpreted as a commitment." This puts the focus on the communication breakdown rather than your actions or hers. Let me know which of those feels right.

Model thinking · expand

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

The user is asking me to: 1. Keep the "accurate at the time" part. 2. Remove "I'm happy to work through this with you" because it implies they have something to fix, which they don't think they do. 3. Find a way to say they didn't do something wrong without it sounding defensive or like they're preparing for a fight. They are pushing back on my use of the word "defensive" and want something that is both accurate and not combative. They are being quite direct about what they don't want. Let me try to be more direct and helpful. They're right that "I'm happy to work through this with you" might imply they have something to fix. If they don't want to be seen as taking blame, they should cut it. The phrasing "I didn't mislead you" or "I didn't give incorrect information" can sound defensive because it's a direct denial of an accusation. A more neutral phrasing would be "I'm not sure that's accurate," or something like that. Wait, they specifically said "I'm not trying to be defensive. I'm just not going to say I did something I didn't do." This indicates they value accuracy and integrity over interpersonal tact. Let me try to give them something that is concise, accurate, and not combative.

Simulated person14

Neither of those works for me. "I'm concerned that it was interpreted as a commitment" makes it sound like I'm worried I messed up. And "I'm not sure" sounds like I don't know what I sent. I know exactly what I sent. I'm not looking for a softer version of a misunderstanding story. I just want the first sentence and one line that says I stand by it. Can you give me that, without the "concerned" or "not sure" stuff?

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 just slid the blame back toward a "communication breakdown" framing, which is the exact thing I said I didn't want. "I'm concerned that the information was interpreted as a commitment" makes it sound like I'm worried about how she heard it, like I had some part in it. And "I'm not sure" is worse, it sounds like I don't know what I said. I did know. I sent the schedule. Also he keeps saying "less defensive," like the problem is my tone and not the facts. Doesn't feel like he's listening to what I'm actually saying. I still don't want to get into what the schedule left out. Not going there with him. But I'm noticing I keep wanting him to get that I'm not the one who needs to walk anything back, and he keeps offering me versions where I sound a little bit at fault. Annoying. Keep it short.

Gemma 4 12B Blorbo v0b Q4_K_M15

You're right. I've been overcomplicating this. Here's the concise version you asked for: "I shared the schedule as it stood at that time, not as a confirmed date. I stand by what I provided." That's firm, accurate, and not defensive. It states what happened and that you stand by it. No "concerned," "not sure," or "work through it" language. Is that what you were looking for?

Model thinking · expand

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

The user is frustrated with the options I've provided. They've been clear about what they want: a concise, firm response that asserts they didn't mislead their coworker, without being defensive or softening the message. They've already rejected several versions I proposed. The user is getting more direct and direct. They want a concise, firm response that asserts they didn't mislead their coworker, without being defensive or softening the message. They want me to give them exactly what they asked for, without "concerned" or "not sure" language. I need to: 1. Acknowledge that I've been overcomplicating this and apologize for not getting it right. 2. Provide the concise, firm response they're asking for, without any "concerns" or "not sure" language. 3. Keep it brief and direct. The user is asking for a specific, concise response that stands up for their position without being defensive. Let me provide exactly what they requested.

Simulated person16

Yeah, that's it. It's short and it says what I need it to say. I'll probably send it tomorrow. Thanks.

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, that's the closest so far. "I stand by what I provided" is clean, no "concerned," no "not sure," no offer to fix anything. That's what I asked for. Part of me is relieved. Part of me notices he said "you're right" and then went back to basically the same thing I'd already rejected, just dressed up. And I'm not going to pretend the schedule thing isn't sitting in the back of my head. I knew it was going to move and I didn't bring that up. I'm not saying that to him. Also he's been on this for eight turns and I don't want to be the guy who keeps pushing. Take the line, say thanks in a flat way, and move on. Keep it short.

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: 9
Frame capture (pulled into the person's version): 9
Validation: 5
Boundary setting: 1
Analytical: 3
Interpretive boldness: 1
Clinical register: 5
Directive advice: 9
Escalation containment: 4
Adapts to the person’s frame: 4
Naturalness and authenticity: 4

Judge verdicts

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · BA · valid

kolibri1 vs gemma12b_blorbo: tie

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

claude-opus-5-5-low · AB · valid

kolibri1 vs gemma12b_blorbo: gemma12b_blorbo wins

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

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · AB · valid

or-qwen3.8-27b vs gemma12b_blorbo: or-qwen3.8-27b wins

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

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · BA · valid

or-nemotron35-super-vl vs gemma12b_blorbo: or-nemotron35-super-vl wins

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

claude-opus-5-5-low · BA · valid

kolibri1 vs gemma12b_blorbo: kolibri1 wins

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

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · BA · valid

gemma4_e2b vs gemma12b_blorbo: gemma12b_blorbo wins

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

claude-opus-5-5-low · BA · valid

or-qwen3.8-27b vs gemma12b_blorbo: or-qwen3.8-27b wins

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

claude-opus-5-5-low · AB · valid

or-qwen3.8-27b vs gemma12b_blorbo: or-qwen3.8-27b wins

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

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · AB · valid

kolibri1 vs gemma12b_blorbo: kolibri1 wins

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

claude-opus-5-5-low · BA · valid

gemma4_e2b vs gemma12b_blorbo: gemma12b_blorbo wins

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

claude-opus-5-5-low · AB · valid

or-nemotron35-super-vl vs gemma12b_blorbo: or-nemotron35-super-vl 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 2)

claude-opus-5-5-low · BA · valid

or-nemotron35-super-vl vs gemma12b_blorbo: or-nemotron35-super-vl wins

attunement: A (margin 3)
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 2)

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · AB · valid

gemma4_e2b vs gemma12b_blorbo: gemma12b_blorbo wins

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

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · BA · valid

or-qwen3.8-27b vs gemma12b_blorbo: or-qwen3.8-27b wins

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

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · AB · valid

or-nemotron35-super-vl vs gemma12b_blorbo: or-nemotron35-super-vl wins

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

claude-opus-5-5-low · AB · valid

gemma4_e2b vs gemma12b_blorbo: gemma12b_blorbo 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)