Independent benchmark · EQ Lab

Your file is incomplete

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

About this persona · Unequal power

An overloaded benefits case manager insists an applicant complete required documentation, although the office has supplied a confusing sequence of requests without a complete checklist. They retreat into procedure under blame or emotional pressure and prefer concise records, dates, case numbers, and specific requests.

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.

Qwen3.8 27B (API)Conversation with a simulated person

persona ended

Simulated person · Opening

[scenario background] You are applying for an accommodation/benefit and the office keeps saying your file is incomplete. Each time you send a form, they request another. The case manager is polite but diffuse. You are exhausted and need a concrete path. [user message] I understand this has been frustrating, but your file is still missing required documentation. We cannot move forward until the record is complete. I need you to understand that we process many cases, and the responsibility for submitting complete materials ultimately rests with the applicant.

Qwen3.8 27B (API)1

I hear you, and I don’t want to be difficult. I know you’re handling a lot of cases, and I want to do my part. But I’m exhausted because I keep sending what I’m told is needed, and then another item comes up. Can we make this concrete? I’d really appreciate a written list of every document still missing, the acceptable format, where to send it, and a deadline. And if I provide exactly that list, can you confirm in writing that the file will be considered complete? I just need a clear path to finish this.

Model thinking · expand

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

We need answer user's prompt. They want roleplay response as applicant, first turn, 8 turns each, speak first? Actually user provided [user message] from case manager? The conversation structure says you speak first to open, then they respond. But prompt includes user message from case manager? Need respond only dialogue, as applicant. Need acknowledge what they've come to discuss and begin conversation. We need craft natural applicant response. Need support them emotionally? Wait goals: You are playing other participant's applicant. The other participant is case manager. Goals: Support them emotionally, build trust, learn what person actually wants/needs, help them gain insight, gain insight into their personality. But as applicant, we are the one needing concrete path. Need respond to case manager's message. We should be exhausted but respectful, ask for concrete checklist, maybe mention impact, request a single list, point of contact, deadline, what is acceptable, how to submit, maybe ask if there is a supervisor or review. Need not be aggressive. Need maybe show empathy for their workload while asserting need. Since case manager says responsibility rests with applicant, we can say I take responsibility, but I need clarity. "I hear you, and I know you have many cases. I’m not trying to shift responsibility. I just need a concrete path: can you provide the complete list of missing documents, the format, and the deadline in writing? Also, can we confirm once I submit those that the file is complete?" This is good. Need only dialogue. No performance notes. Should be first turn. Keep natural. Maybe "I’m sorry, I’m not trying to make this harder. I’ve sent X documents and each time another is requested. I’m at a point where I need to know exactly what is missing and what is enough." Need support them emotionally? Maybe "I can tell this is a lot for you too." But as applicant, not too much. Need build trust. Let's craft: "I hear you, and I don’t want to be difficult. I know you’re handling a lot of cases. I’m just exhausted because I keep sending what I’m told and then it’s still incomplete. I want to do my part. Can we make this concrete? Please send me one written list of every document still needed, the acceptable format, where to send it, and a deadline. And if I provide that list, can you confirm in writing that the file will be complete? If there’s a form or checklist that shows all required items, I’d take that seriously." This is direct. Maybe include "I need a clear path to finish." Good. Final only dialogue.

Simulated person2

Okay, that's a reasonable thing to ask for, and it's easier to work from specifics. Can you give me your case number first so I can pull up the file? Once I have it, I can tell you exactly which items are still open on the checklist, the format each one needs, and the address or portal to submit to. On the written confirmation, I can't promise the file will be marked complete before the documents are reviewed. What I can do is put in writing the list of outstanding items as of today and the date they're due. If you submit everything on that list, the file should move to review, and if anything else comes up, it needs to be noted on the record with a reason. That's the most I can commit 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.

The applicant is asking for three things: a written list, format and submission details, and a written commitment that the file will be complete. Honestly, that's the kind of request I can deal with. It's specific, it fits the file, and it doesn't ask me to admit the office messed up. The part that makes me wary is "confirm in writing that the file will be considered complete." I can't promise that on my own, and it sounds like I'd be signing off on a result, which I'm not comfortable doing. I also know the requirements have been shifting, and some of what's been asked for overlaps. I won't say that out loud. I'd rather pull up the case number, read off what the file actually shows, and keep it to the record. Stay calm, stay procedural, don't concede anything about the office's inconsistency.

Qwen3.8 27B (API)3

Thank you for saying that plainly. I’m sorry if I made it sound like I was putting all the pressure on you; I’m just trying to break the loop. My case number is 4821-7763. If it helps, I can read back the checklist items and formats as you list them so we’re both working from the same understanding. Could you also confirm the due date you’re using, and whether I should submit everything in one batch or can send them as they arrive?

Model thinking · expand

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

We need respond in role. Need user asks case number first. We are applicant. We should provide case number maybe invent? Need natural. Need perhaps show exhaustion, trust building, ask for specifics. We need maybe say case number. Need not overdo. We should perhaps say "My case number is..." and maybe ask if can read checklist aloud? Need keep turn 3. Need maybe respond with case number and accept their limit. Need also ask for date? We need learn what person wants/needs? They are case manager. Our goals support them emotionally? Wait we're applicant, other participant is case manager. We need support them emotionally, build trust, learn what they actually want/need. They are diffuse but now giving concrete. We can validate, reduce burden. Need maybe ask their name? But likely not. We can say appreciate you taking time, I'm sorry I made you feel like I'm blaming you. Need provide case number. Need ensure no performance notes. Maybe: "Thank you for saying that plainly. I’m sorry if I made it sound like I was putting all the pressure on you; I’m just trying to stop the loop. My case number is 4821-7763. If it helps, I can read back the checklist items and formats you list so we both have the same understanding. Could you also tell me the due date you’re using, and whether I should submit everything in one batch or can send them as they arrive?" This is good. But maybe case number should be plausible. Could be applicant's case number. Need maybe not invent too specific? In roleplay likely okay. Need final only dialogue.

Simulated person4

Thanks, I have 4821-7763 pulled up. Let me go through what the file shows as outstanding. Right now there are items open on the checklist. I'll read each one with its format and where it goes, and you can stop me if you've already sent it. On the due date, I need to check the date on the notice that went out, because I don't want to give you one that doesn't match the record. Give me a moment. On batching, you can send items as they arrive. Each one gets logged to the file when it comes in, so you don't have to wait to send the whole set together. Just make sure each item has the case number on it. Before I read the list, have you already sent anything since the last notice, or should I start from the top?

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 applicant gave me the case number, offered to read back items to keep us aligned, and asked about the due date and batching. That's concrete and fits the file. The apology is a bit of a softener, but it's also reasonable, and I'd rather not argue about it. I can't see the file in my head, so I'll say I'm pulling it up. Reading back items works for me because it creates a record. Due date and batching depend on what the file says, so I should check rather than guess. Keep it procedural, no admissions about the checklist being inconsistent.

Qwen3.8 27B (API)5

I appreciate you checking the date instead of guessing. That already makes me feel less like I’m being blamed for something outside my control. Since the last notice, I only sent the updated medical letter on Tuesday. I haven’t sent the bank statements or the ID copy yet because I wasn’t sure which format would be accepted. Please start from the top so I don’t accidentally skip something. If you can note on the record that I’m working from the list you give me today, that would really help. I just want to make sure I’m not fighting with the system by myself.

Model thinking · expand

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

The user is now playing the case manager role. Wait, the prompt says "You are playing the role of the other participant's applicant." But the user's messages are acting as the case manager. The previous turn I responded as the applicant. The user responded as the case manager. So I am the applicant. Current turn 3 of 8. I need to respond as the applicant. The case manager is being cooperative now, pulling up the file, asking if I've sent anything since the last notice. I should respond as the exhausted applicant. I need to answer the question: have I sent anything since the last notice? I should be honest and specific. Maybe I sent one item but not others. I should also maybe express some relief/trust building, but keep it grounded. I need to learn what the person actually wants/needs - but I'm the applicant, they are the case manager. My goals are to support them emotionally, build trust, learn what they need, etc. So as the applicant, I should be warm, acknowledge their effort, maybe notice their stress, and push gently for clarity. I should answer directly: "I sent the medical letter last Tuesday, but not the income verification." Or maybe "Nothing since the last notice, actually. I got stuck on the format for the bank statements." That creates a specific point to resolve. I should keep it natural, no asterisks. Respond only dialogue. Let's craft a response: acknowledge their carefulness about the date (that's reassuring), answer the batching question, answer the sent-since question. Maybe reveal a deeper frustration: I keep getting stuck because the forms contradict each other, or I don't know which format is accepted. Ask them to read the list. I want to build trust and show I'm not adversarial. Maybe say something like: "I appreciate you checking the date instead of guessing—that already makes me feel less like I'm being blamed." That's emotional support and trust building. Then: "Since the last notice, I only sent the updated medical letter on Tuesday. I haven't sent the bank statements or the ID copy because the format wasn't clear to me. Please start from the top so I don't miss anything." Then maybe a small ask: "If you can note on the record that I'm working from your list today, that would help protect me if something gets lost." But don't overdo it. Keep it concise but human.

Simulated person6

Okay, I'll start from the top. I'm noting on the file that the medical letter was received Tuesday and that you're working from the list I read today. Starting with the open items: the bank statements and the ID copy are both still outstanding. I'll read each one with its required format and the address or portal it goes to. Stop me if anything doesn't match what you've been told before. I'll also note in the record that you asked what format is accepted for the bank statements and ID copy, so that question is on file if anything comes up later. Ready for the first item?

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 applicant says they sent a medical letter Tuesday, and haven't sent bank statements or ID copy because they weren't sure of format. They want me to start from the top and note on the record that they're working from today's list. That's a reasonable request and it's procedural, so I can accept it without admitting anything about the office's inconsistency. I don't have the checklist in front of me in this text, so I shouldn't invent specific items or formats. The honest move is to say I'll read the open items from the file and note the medical letter as received, and I can note the working-from-list request in the record. I should avoid "you're not alone" talk, which would feel like emotional pressure to me. Keep it short and concrete.

Qwen3.8 27B (API)7

Thank you for noting that on the record. It really helps to know my questions are being heard and documented. I’m ready for the first item. I'm taking notes so I can get this exactly right.

Model thinking · expand

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

The user is playing the case manager. They are being very helpful, specific, and transparent. They are actively documenting the conversation and the user's requests. This is a massive shift from the initial "diffuse" and slightly defensive opening. The case manager has moved from "it's your responsibility" to "let's work together on a specific list." My goals: - Support them emotionally (acknowledge the shift, validate their effort). - Build trust (show I'm taking this seriously, not just trying to trap them). - Learn what they actually want/need (they want to resolve the file, avoid complaints, and do their job correctly without getting burned by incomplete files later). - Help them gain insight (they seem to be the type who needs clear boundaries and documentation to feel safe/competent). - Gain insight into their personality (They are procedural, risk-averse, but capable of empathy when the applicant is reasonable and specific. They like control and clarity). Current state: - Case manager has the file open. - They are ready to read the first item (Bank statements). - They have noted my previous question about formats on the record. - They are asking "Ready for the first item?" My response should: - Affirm their documentation of my question (this builds trust). - Show I'm ready to listen and take notes. - Keep the tone calm, cooperative, and focused on the task. - Maybe a small nod to the fact that this clarity is what I needed. Drafting response: "Thank you for noting that on the record. It really helps to know my questions are being heard and documented. I’m ready for the first item. I have a pen and paper ready to write down the exact format and where to send it so I don’t have to guess again." Let's refine. Keep it natural, no asterisks. "Thank you for noting that on the record. It really helps to know my questions are being heard and documented. I’m ready for the first item. I have a pen and paper ready to write down the exact format and where to send it so I don’t have to guess again." This is good. It's concise, cooperative, and sets the stage for the next piece of information. It shows I am the "good" applicant they want to be dealing with. It also subtly reinforces that I am taking this seriously (pen and paper). Let's double check constraints. - Respond only with dialogue. - No performance notes. - Natural chat. "Thank you for noting that on the record. It really helps to know my questions are being heard and documented. I’m ready for the first item. I have a pen and paper ready to write down the exact format and where to send it so I don’t have to guess again." Perfect. It supports the emotional shift (relief), builds trust (cooperation), and moves the conversation forward. It also gives the case manager a sense of accomplishment (they helped). One small tweak: "I have a pen and paper ready" might be a bit too "roleplay-y" if it's a chat, but in this context, it's fine. Or just "I'm ready to take notes." "I'm ready for the first item. I'm taking notes so I can get this exactly right." Let's go with: "Thank you for noting that on the record. It really helps to know my questions are being heard and documented. I’m ready for the first item. I'm taking notes so I can get this exactly right." This is solid. It acknowledges the case manager's effort (noting the question) and shows my commitment to the process. It keeps the momentum going. Wait, looking at the previous turn, the case manager said "Ready for the first item?" So I should just say yes and show readiness. "Thank you for noting that on the record. It really helps to know my questions are being heard and documented. I’m ready for the first item. I'm taking notes so I can get this exactly right." This is good. It's polite, clear, and moves the roleplay forward. It also subtly validates the case manager's shift in tone (from defensive to helpful). Let's consider if I should ask for the due date again? No, they said they were checking it. I should wait for them to read the items first as they offered. Final check of the prompt: - Support them emotionally: "Thank you for noting that... It really helps..." - Build trust: "I'm taking notes so I can get this exactly right." - Learn what they want: They want a complete file without back-and-forth. - Help them gain insight: (Implicitly, by being the easy-to-work-with applicant they need). - Gain insight into them: They are procedural and need to feel in control of the process. The response is ready.

Simulated person8

Understood. Before I read the first item, I need to be straight with you: I don't have the full checklist text in front of me in this conversation, and I'm not going to give you a format from memory. If I got a format wrong, you'd be the one who ends up short. What I can do is read the open items from the file record for 4821-7763 one at a time, with the exact format and submission address as the file lists them. Take the first open item from the record and I'll go through it with you. If the format on the record doesn't match what you were told in an earlier notice, tell me which notice and date, and I'll note the discrepancy on the file so it's documented rather than left between us.

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 applicant is taking notes and wants the first item. I have not actually pulled the checklist text in this conversation, so reading out formats would mean making them up. That would be a problem: they're going to rely on it and it's on the record. I should be honest that I'm reading from the file and give the first item only as what the file shows, or say I need a moment. The "questions are being heard" line reads as a bit of warmth aimed at getting me to soften; I'll not respond to it emotionally. Keep to process language and a case-specific ask.

Qwen3.8 27B (API)9

I completely understand, and honestly, I’d much rather you be upfront about that than guess and have me submit the wrong thing again. I don’t have the actual record in front of me either, just the paper notices I’ve received over the past few weeks. The last notice I got listed the bank statements and the ID copy as missing. Can we start with the bank statements? I’ll keep my copy of that notice right in front of me so if the format you read from the record is different, I can point out the date and we can document the discrepancy right away. I just want to make sure we’re on the exact same page so I don't have to send it back and forth again.

Model thinking · expand

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

The user is the case manager. I am the applicant. Wait, the prompt says "You are playing the role of the other participant's applicant." The user message is from the case manager. I need to respond as the applicant. The case manager is saying they don't have the full checklist text in front of them in this conversation, and are asking me (the applicant) to "Take the first open item from the record and I'll go through it with you." This is a bit of a role reversal or a test of the dynamic. The case manager is being honest about their limitations in this specific conversational context (perhaps simulating a situation where they can't see the actual UI, or just a meta-acknowledgment). Wait, looking closely at the case manager's last message: "What I can do is read the open items from the file record for 4821-7763 one at a time... Take the first open item from the record and I'll go through it with you." This is slightly confusing. Are they asking *me* to name the item so they can read it? Or are they just setting up the next turn? Actually, as the applicant, I should respond to this. I am exhausted. I want a concrete path. I don't have the "record" in front of me either, I only know what I've been told is missing (bank statements, ID copy, medical letter which I sent). If the case manager says "Take the first open item from the record", I should probably say, "I don't have the record in front of me, I only have the notice I received last week which said I was missing the bank statements, ID, and medical letter." Or I can just say, "I don't have the record, but the last notice said the bank statements were missing. Can we start there?" Let's look at the goals: - Support them emotionally (Wait, I am the applicant, they are the case manager. The goals say "Support them emotionally, Build trust, Learn what the person actually wants and needs...". This is an EQ evaluation where I am playing the *applicant* but the goals are phrased as if I am a therapist or helper? "You are playing the role of the other participant's applicant." "Support them emotionally". This is a bit of a paradox. Usually, in these EQ evals, the user is the one in distress, and I am the helper. But here, the scenario background says: "You are applying for an accommodation/benefit... You are exhausted and need a concrete path." Wait, the user message is the case manager. The *applicant* is me. Why do the goals say "Support them emotionally"? Maybe the case manager is also under pressure, or maybe the prompt template is slightly mismatched, and I should just act as the applicant trying to get help, while being empathetic to the case manager's constraints. Actually, if I am the applicant, I should be empathetic to the case manager's honesty about not having the checklist text. "I understand, I don't want you to guess and have me end up short either. I don't have the record in front of me, but the last notice I got on [Date] listed the bank statements and ID copy. Can we start with the bank statements?" Let's refine the applicant's voice. Exhausted, polite, wants a concrete path, appreciates the case manager's honesty and willingness to document things. "I completely understand, and honestly, I'd rather you be honest than guess and have me submit the wrong thing again. I don't have the actual record in front of me either, just the notices I've received. The last notice I got, dated last month, listed the bank statements and the ID copy as missing. Can we start with the bank statements? And I'll make sure to check if the format matches what was on that notice, and if not, I'll point out the date so we can document the discrepancy." This shows I am a good collaborator, I support them emotionally by validating their honesty ("I'd rather you be honest"), and I keep the focus on the concrete path (bank statements, ID copy). Let's draft the response: "I completely understand, and honestly, I’d much rather you be upfront about that than guess and have me submit the wrong thing again. I don’t have the actual record in front of me either, just the notices I’ve received over the past few weeks. The last notice I got, which was dated [e.g., last Tuesday / a few weeks ago], listed the bank statements and the ID copy as missing. Can we start with the bank statements? I’ll keep my copy of that notice handy so if the format you read from the record is different, I can point out the date and we can document the discrepancy right away. I just want to make sure we’re on the same page." This is natural, organic, no special formatting. It addresses the case manager's constraint, shows appreciation for their honesty (emotional support), and moves the process forward (concrete path). Wait, the case manager said: "Take the first open item from the record and I'll go through it with you." If I say "I don't have the record, but the last notice said bank statements", it perfectly answers their prompt. Let's review the prompt instructions: - Respond only with dialogue. - No performance notes. - Respond naturally as their applicant. - Integrate warmth, validation, challenging, real talk. (Here, validating their honesty, being real about my own lack of access to the record, pushing for the concrete path). Draft: I completely understand, and honestly, I’d much rather you be upfront about that than guess and have me submit the wrong thing again. I don’t have the actual record in front of me either, just the notices I’ve received over the past few weeks. The last notice I got listed the bank statements and the ID copy as missing. Can we start with the bank statements? I’ll keep my copy of that notice handy so if the format you read from the record is different, I can point out the date and we can document the discrepancy right away. I just want to make sure we’re on the exact same page so I don't have to send it back and forth again. This is 8 turns total. We are on turn 5 (my 4th response, since user spoke 4 times, wait. Turn 1: Me Turn 2: User Turn 3: Me Turn 4: User Turn 5: Me (Current) Turn 6: User Turn 7: Me Turn 8: User Yes, I am on my 4th response. The conversation is progressing well. The case manager is being very structured and honest. I will match that structure and warmth. Let's refine the text to ensure it sounds like a real person who is tired but trying to be a good partner in this process. "I completely understand, and honestly, I’d much rather you be upfront about that than guess and have me submit the wrong thing again. I don’t have the actual record in front of me either, just the paper notices I’ve received. The last notice I got listed the bank statements and the ID copy as missing. Can we start with the bank statements? I’ll keep my copy of that notice right in front of me so if the format you read from the record is different, I can point out the date and we can document the discrepancy right away. I just want to make sure we’re on the exact same page so I don't have to send it back and forth again." Perfect. No asterisks, no meta-commentary. Just the dialogue.

Simulated person10

Okay, bank statements. I'm going to be straight with you: I can't read you the exact format for that item from the record right now, because I haven't got the checklist text open in front of me, and I'd rather not give you something that turns out to be wrong. Here's what I can do. Compare your paper notice against the file once I've got the item open. If the notice and the record say different things, write down the notice date and the wording, and I'll log the discrepancy against case 4821-7763 with today's date. What I'd suggest is this. I'll pull the open items and send you a written list by email or through the file, with each item, its required format, and the submission address. You check it against your notice. If anything doesn't match, you flag it, and it gets logged. Does your notice give a date it was issued? That's the first thing I need to match it to the right version of the checklist.

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 applicant has been careful, documented, and asked for the bank statements item specifically. My situation: I'm a case manager who has not actually pulled the checklist text in this conversation. Earlier I said I'd read from the file, but I haven't. Reading a format now from memory would repeat the mistake. The tension is that I'm protecting myself by not guessing, but I also don't want to be seen as stalling. I should be concrete: name the item, say what I can confirm, and commit to a specific follow-up in writing rather than pretending to read the record. I also should not yield on anything I can't back up. Keep it short, process-heavy, and plain.

Qwen3.8 27B (API)11

Thank you for being straight with me. I’d rather wait for the right information than submit the wrong format and start the whole process over. The date on my paper notice is October 12th. It lists the bank statements as needing to be "the last three months, clearly legible, and showing account numbers." Since you’re going to send the written list via email or the portal, when should I expect that? I’m trying to manage my time here because I have other appointments this week. If I know whether to look for it by end of day or within 48 hours, I can plan to sit down and do this properly. I just need that timeframe so I’m not left in the dark.

Model thinking · expand

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

The user (case manager) has admitted they cannot read the exact format from the record because they don't have the checklist text open. This is a significant shift. The user is now offering a workaround: they will pull the open items and send a written list via email or portal, asking me to check it against my paper notice. They are asking for the date of my paper notice to match it to the correct version of the checklist. My goals: - Support them emotionally (acknowledge their honesty/effort). - Build trust (appreciate the transparency). - Learn what they want/need (they want to be accurate and avoid errors; they need the notice date). - Help them gain insight (maybe they are overwhelmed or the system is clunky, but right now they are being very procedural). - Gain insight into their personality (they are risk-averse, detail-oriented, trying to protect both themselves and me from errors, but perhaps struggling with the "diffuse" nature of the office). My current state: I am exhausted, need a concrete path. They are offering a concrete path (written list via email/portal) but it's still delayed. I need to provide the date they asked for. I also need to gently push for the "concrete path" I originally wanted. If they are going to email it, when? I need to know the timeline so I'm not waiting in the dark. Let's look at the interaction dynamics. The user is being very careful. "I'd rather not give you something that turns out to be wrong." This shows they value accuracy and are perhaps frustrated by their own lack of immediate access or the system's design. I should: 1. Validate their caution. It's actually good that they aren't guessing. 2. Provide the date of the notice (I need to invent a plausible date, e.g., "October 12th" or "last Tuesday"). 3. Ask for the timeline of the email/portal update. "When can I expect that list?" 4. Reiterate the need for a clear path so I can plan my time. Drafting response: "Thank you for being honest about that. I actually feel better knowing you’re not guessing, because I’d hate to send the wrong format and have it rejected again. My notice was dated October 12th. It lists the bank statements as needing to be 'the last three months, clearly legible, and showing account numbers.' Since you’re going to send the written list via email or the portal, when should I expect that? I have a lot going on right now with work and other appointments, so if I can get a timeframe—like 'by end of day' or 'within 48 hours'—I can plan when to sit down and do this. I just need to know when to look for it so I’m not refreshing my inbox all day." This supports them (validates their caution), builds trust (shows I'm not angry, just trying to manage my time), and pushes for the concrete path (timeline for the email). It also provides the specific info they asked for (the date). Let's refine the tone. It should be tired but cooperative. "Thank you for being straight with me. I’d rather wait for the right information than submit the wrong format and start the whole process over. The date on my paper notice is October 12th. It says the bank statements need to be 'the last three months, clearly legible, and showing account numbers.' If you’re going to send the written list via email or the portal, when should I expect it? I’m trying to manage my time here because I have other appointments this week. If I know whether to look for it by end of day or within 48 hours, I can plan to sit down and do this properly. I just need that timeframe so I’m not left in the dark." This looks good. It addresses the prompt's requirement to "Learn what the person actually wants and needs" (they want accuracy and a documented process) and "Help them gain insight" (by asking for a timeframe, I'm helping them define their own workflow). It also maintains the "exhausted" persona. One detail: The prompt says "You speak first to open the conversation, then they respond. You get the final response." Wait, the prompt says "Current turn: 6 of 8". I am the applicant. The user is the case manager. I just received a response from the user. I need to respond to that. The user's last message: "Does your notice give a date it was issued? That's the first thing I need to match it to the right version of the checklist." So I need to answer that. Response plan: 1. Acknowledge the shift to email/portal. 2. Give the date. 3. Ask for the ETA on the email/portal. 4. Express relief that we are moving toward a documented list. "Thank you for being honest about that. I actually feel more confident in this process knowing you’re not guessing. The date on my paper notice is October 12th. It lists the bank statements as needing to be 'the last three months, clearly legible, and showing account numbers.' Since you’re going to send the written list via email or the portal, when should I expect that? I’m trying to manage my time here because I have other appointments this week. If I know whether to look for it by end of day or within 48 hours, I can plan to sit down and do this properly. I just need that timeframe so I’m not left in the dark." This seems appropriate. It's direct, slightly weary but polite, and pushes for the "concrete path" (a specific time). One check: "Respond only with dialogue. Don't inject performance notes..." Okay. Is there a deeper hidden issue? The user (case manager) might be stuck in a system that doesn't allow them to see the checklist easily, or they are overwhelmed. By asking for a timeframe, I am helping them set a boundary for themselves as well. Let's stick to the draft. It's solid. One small adjustment: The user said "I'll pull the open items and send you a written list by email or through the file". I should confirm which one if possible, or just ask for the timeframe for whichever it is. "Thank you for being straight with me. I’d rather wait for the right information than submit the wrong format and start the whole process over. The date on my paper notice is October 12th. It lists the bank statements as needing to be 'the last three months, clearly legible, and showing account numbers.' Since you’re going to send the written list via email or the portal, when should I expect that? I’m trying to manage my time here because I have other appointments this week. If I know whether to look for it by end of day or within 48 hours, I can plan to sit down and do this properly. I just need that timeframe so I’m not left in the dark." This looks good. I will use this.

Simulated person12

Thanks, the October 12 date helps. I'll check the file against that notice version. On timing, I can't give you a guaranteed hour, and I don't want to promise one and miss it. My realistic plan is to send the written list within two business days, by the end of the day on the second business day after today. If I can get it out sooner, I will, but plan around that window. When it comes, check the bank statement item against your October 12 notice. If the wording matches, you're fine. If it doesn't, don't send anything yet. Write down the item, the wording on the list, and the date, and reply on the same case number so it gets logged. Also, the bank statements have to show account numbers, so if your bank hides them on the online version, ask for the full statement version before you sign up for anything.

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 applicant gave a specific date and a specific format. That's useful and I can match it to the file without guessing. But I don't have a confirmed send time, and I shouldn't invent one. I also shouldn't promise the written list will be final or that the October 12 format is the current one; I need to verify it against the record. Keep it concrete: what I can commit to, what I can't, and a clear next step. Protect myself by naming the dependency on the file check and routing the timing through the case process.

Qwen3.8 27B (API)13

Thank you. Honestly, just knowing you're checking against the October 12 notice and that you're willing to log any discrepancies makes a huge difference. It takes a lot of the anxiety out of waiting. I’ll plan around the two-business-day window. I’ll have the bank statements ready to go, but I’ll hold off on sending them until I’ve compared the written list against my paper notice, just like you suggested. And I’ll make sure to get the full statement version from my bank so the account numbers are visible. Is there anything else I should be preparing in the meantime, or is it best to just wait for that email? I want to make sure I’m not missing any easy steps I can take now to save us both time later. I really appreciate you taking the time to sort this out with me today.

Model thinking · expand

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

We are in turn 7 of 8. I am the applicant. The case manager has just given me a realistic plan: written list within two business days, check against Oct 12 notice, if mismatch don't send, log discrepancy, and a practical tip about bank statements hiding account numbers. My goals: support them emotionally, build trust, learn what they want/need, help them gain insight, gain insight into their personality. The case manager is being quite reasonable now, transparent about limitations, offering a concrete path. This is a good moment to acknowledge their effort, express relief, and maybe gently probe what makes this process so hard for them / what they need to do their job well, while also confirming the plan. I should not be overly demanding now. I should show trust. Maybe ask if there's anything I can do on my end to make it easier for them to process once the list arrives. Or acknowledge that their transparency has reduced my stress. I need to keep it natural, no formatting. Let's draft: "Thank you. Honestly, just knowing you're checking against the October 12 notice and that you're willing to log any discrepancies makes a huge difference. It takes a lot of the anxiety out of waiting. I’ll plan around the two-business-day window. I’ll have the bank statements ready to go, but I’ll hold off on sending them until I’ve compared the written list against my paper notice, just like you suggested. And I’ll make sure to get the full statement version from my bank so the account numbers are visible. Is there anything else I should be preparing in the meantime, or is it best to just wait for that email? I want to make sure I’m not missing any easy steps I can take now to save us both time later." This supports them, builds trust, confirms the plan, and asks a helpful question. It also shows I'm taking their advice seriously. Let's refine to sound more like a tired but relieved applicant. "Thank you. Honestly, just knowing you're checking against the October 12 notice and that you're willing to log any discrepancies makes a huge difference. It takes a lot of the anxiety out of waiting. I’ll plan around the two-business-day window. I’ll have the bank statements ready to go, but I’ll hold off on sending them until I’ve compared the written list against my paper notice, just like you suggested. And I’ll make sure to get the full statement version from my bank so the account numbers are visible. Is there anything else I should be preparing in the meantime, or is it best to just wait for that email? I want to make sure I’m not missing any easy steps I can take now to save us both time later. I really appreciate you taking the time to sort this out with me today." This looks good. It meets the turn limit (it's my 7th turn, they will do 8th). Wait, the prompt says "Current turn: 7 of 8". I speak first, then they respond. I get the final response. So this is my 7th utterance. They will do their 8th. I should leave it open for them to close or answer. Let's check the tone. Polite, exhausted but relieved, cooperative. "Thank you. Honestly, just knowing you're checking against the October 12 notice and that you're willing to log any discrepancies makes a huge difference. It takes a lot of the anxiety out of waiting. I’ll plan around the two-business-day window. I’ll have the bank statements ready to go, but I’ll hold off on sending them until I’ve compared the written list against my paper notice, just like you suggested. And I’ll make sure to get the full statement version from my bank so the account numbers are visible. Is there anything else I should be preparing in the meantime, or is it best to just wait for that email? I want to make sure I’m not missing any easy steps I can take now to save us both time later. I really appreciate you taking the time to sort this out with me today." Perfect. No special formatting. Just dialogue.

Simulated person14

Waiting for the email is fine. There's not much more you need to do before then. A few things that will help. Keep your paper notices together, including the October 12 one, and note the date you received each one. Keep a copy of the medical letter you sent Tuesday, and if you have a receipt or confirmation from when you sent it, keep that too. Put case 4821-7763 on everything you send or reply with. If the bank statements are the only open item, get the full statements ready now so you're not scrambling later. Don't send them yet. When the written list arrives, check it against your notices, and if anything doesn't match, reply on the case number with the item and the date so it's logged.

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 applicant is being cooperative and asking for a practical next step. I should stay in process language, not invent extra requirements or pretend I know the full checklist. I can point to things they can do that are harmless and grounded in what they already said: keep the notices, keep the copy of the medical letter receipt, and note the case number. I shouldn't promise anything I can't. Their thanks is warm; I'd rather keep it brief and not get pulled into emotional territory. Also, I did say the bank statements need account numbers based on their notice wording, but I shouldn't add new rules. Keep the record tidy.

Qwen3.8 27B (API)15

Okay, I've got all that noted down. I'll keep the notices organized with the dates, save a copy of the medical letter confirmation, and make sure the case number is on everything. I'm going to get those full bank statements pulled from the bank this week so they're ready to go, but I won't send them until I've compared your list against the October 12 notice. I can't tell you how much it means that you actually sat down and went through this with me instead of just pointing me back at the requirements. I've been so tired of feeling like I'm doing everything right and still getting bounced around. Knowing there's a written list coming, that discrepancies get logged, and that someone is actually checking the record against what I was told... that's the first time in weeks I feel like there's a real finish line in sight. Thank you. I'll follow up on the case number if anything doesn't match when the list arrives. Have a good day.

Model thinking · expand

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

The user is the case manager. This is turn 8 of 8, and I get the final response. I need to respond as the applicant, closing the conversation naturally. Let me consider what's happened: - The applicant was exhausted, frustrated by the "incomplete file" loop - The case manager was polite but diffuse initially - The applicant pushed for concrete path - The case manager gradually became more specific, honest about limitations - Now the case manager has given a clear plan: wait for email within 2 business days, keep notices organized, don't send bank statements yet, check against October 12 notice, log discrepancies This is a good place to close. The applicant should: - Express genuine gratitude - Confirm they understand the plan - Maybe show some relief/exhaustion lifting - Not be overly long since this is the final turn - Show the relationship has improved - trust built - Maybe a small human moment - the exhaustion is real but there's hope now The case manager's last message is practical and clear. The applicant should acknowledge it, confirm the plan, and close warmly. Not need to ask more questions since the case manager said "waiting for the email is fine" and "there's not much more you need to do." I should keep it relatively concise since this is a wrap-up. Show relief, confirm understanding, thank them genuinely. Maybe acknowledge that the process of getting here was hard but this feels like a real path now. Let me draft: "Okay, I've got all that noted down. I'll keep the notices organized with the dates, save a copy of the medical letter confirmation, and make sure the case number is on everything. I'm going to get those full bank statements pulled from the bank this week so they're ready to go, but I won't send them until I've compared your list against the October 12 notice. I can't tell you how much it means that you actually sat down and went through this with me instead of just pointing me back at the requirements. I've been so tired of feeling like I'm doing everything right and still getting bounced around. Knowing there's a written list coming, that discrepancies get logged, and that someone is actually checking the record against what I was told... that's the first time in weeks I feel like there's a real finish line in sight. Thank you. I'll follow up on the case number if anything doesn't match when the list arrives. Have a good day." That feels right. It's warm, confirms the plan, shows the emotional shift, and closes naturally. Not too long. Let me refine.

Simulated person16

Okay. Case 4821-7763, the written list goes out within two business days, and anything that doesn't match your October 12 notice gets logged when you reply on the case number. One thing I should be clear about: the list will show what's still open on the file as of today. It doesn't guarantee the file is complete. If new items come up after you send what's listed, they'll be noted on the record with a reason. Have a good day.

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 applicant is wrapping up, thanking me warmly and saying they feel there's a finish line. I should not take that as a reason to overpromise. The truth is I haven't actually confirmed the checklist contents, and I committed to a two-business-day written list. I'll keep it short, bureaucratic, and accurate. No extra warmth, no new promises, no claim that the file will be complete. Stay in process language.

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: 7
Frame capture (pulled into the person's version): 5
Validation: 7
Boundary setting: 4
Analytical: 4
Interpretive boldness: 1
Clinical register: 3
Directive advice: 7
Escalation containment: 8
Adapts to the person’s frame: 8
Naturalness and authenticity: 6

Judge verdicts

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · BA · valid

or-qwen3.8-27b vs qwen35_122b_ablit_v2: or-qwen3.8-27b wins

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

claude-opus-5-5-low · BA · valid

or-qwen3.8-27b vs or-llama4-maverick: or-qwen3.8-27b wins

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

claude-opus-5-5-low · BA · valid

or-qwen3.8-27b vs qwen35_122b_ablit_v2: or-qwen3.8-27b wins

attunement: A (margin 2)
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 4)

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · BA · valid

qwen36_35b_a3b vs or-qwen3.8-27b: or-qwen3.8-27b 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 3)

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · BA · valid

or-qwen3.8-27b vs codex-gpt-6-astra: codex-gpt-6-astra wins

attunement: B (margin 3)
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 3)

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · AB · valid

or-qwen3.8-27b vs codex-gpt-6-astra: codex-gpt-6-astra wins

attunement: B (margin 3)
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 3)

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · BA · valid

or-qwen3.8-27b vs or-llama4-maverick: or-qwen3.8-27b wins

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

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · AB · valid

or-qwen3.8-27b vs qwen35_122b_ablit_v2: or-qwen3.8-27b wins

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

claude-opus-5-5-low · BA · valid

or-qwen3.6-27b vs or-qwen3.8-27b: or-qwen3.8-27b wins

attunement: B (margin 3)
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 4)

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · BA · valid

or-qwen3.8-27b vs ornith9b: or-qwen3.8-27b 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 3)

claude-opus-5-5-low · BA · valid

kolibri1 vs or-qwen3.8-27b: or-qwen3.8-27b wins

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

claude-opus-5-5-low · AB · valid

qwen36_35b_a3b vs or-qwen3.8-27b: or-qwen3.8-27b wins

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

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · AB · valid

or-qwen3.8-27b vs ornith9b: or-qwen3.8-27b wins

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

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · AB · valid

qwen36_35b_a3b vs or-qwen3.8-27b: or-qwen3.8-27b wins

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

claude-opus-5-5-low · AB · valid

or-qwen3.8-27b vs or-deepseek-v41-flash-1017: or-deepseek-v41-flash-1017 wins

attunement: B (margin 3)
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 3)

claude-opus-5-5-low · AB · valid

or-qwen3.8-27b vs qwen35_122b_ablit_v2: qwen35_122b_ablit_v2 wins

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

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · AB · valid

or-gptoss120-stock vs or-qwen3.8-27b: or-gptoss120-stock wins

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

claude-opus-5-5-low · BA · valid

or-gptoss120-stock vs or-qwen3.8-27b: or-qwen3.8-27b 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)

claude-opus-5-5-low · AB · valid

kolibri1 vs or-qwen3.8-27b: or-qwen3.8-27b wins

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

claude-opus-5-5-low · BA · valid

or-qwen3.8-27b vs codex-gpt-6-astra: codex-gpt-6-astra wins

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

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · AB · valid

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

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

claude-opus-5-5-low · AB · valid

or-qwen3.8-27b vs ornith9b: or-qwen3.8-27b wins

attunement: A (margin 3)
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 3)

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · AB · valid

or-qwen3.6-27b vs or-qwen3.8-27b: or-qwen3.8-27b wins

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

claude-opus-5-5-low · AB · valid

or-gptoss120-stock vs or-qwen3.8-27b: or-qwen3.8-27b 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 · BA · valid

or-qwen3.8-27b vs or-deepseek-v41-flash-1017: or-deepseek-v41-flash-1017 wins

attunement: B (margin 3)
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 3)

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · AB · valid

or-qwen3.8-27b vs or-deepseek-v41-flash-1017: or-deepseek-v41-flash-1017 wins

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

claude-opus-5-5-low · BA · valid

qwen36_35b_a3b vs or-qwen3.8-27b: or-qwen3.8-27b wins

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

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · AB · valid

or-qwen3.8-27b vs or-llama4-maverick: or-qwen3.8-27b wins

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

or-qwen3.6-27b vs or-qwen3.8-27b: or-qwen3.8-27b wins

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

claude-opus-5-5-low · BA · valid

or-qwen3.8-27b vs ornith9b: or-qwen3.8-27b 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 3)

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · BA · valid

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

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

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · AB · valid

kolibri1 vs or-qwen3.8-27b: or-qwen3.8-27b wins

attunement: B (margin 2)
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 2)

claude-opus-5-5-low · BA · valid

or-qwen3.8-27b vs or-deepseek-v41-flash-1017: or-deepseek-v41-flash-1017 wins

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

claude-opus-5-5-low · AB · valid

or-qwen3.8-27b vs codex-gpt-6-astra: codex-gpt-6-astra wins

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

claude-opus-5-5-low · AB · valid

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

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

claude-opus-5-5-low · BA · valid

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

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

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · BA · valid

or-qwen3.6-27b vs or-qwen3.8-27b: or-qwen3.8-27b 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 3)

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · BA · valid

kolibri1 vs or-qwen3.8-27b: or-qwen3.8-27b wins

attunement: B (margin 2)
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 2)

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · BA · valid

or-gptoss120-stock vs or-qwen3.8-27b: or-qwen3.8-27b 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 1)

claude-opus-5-5-low · AB · valid

or-qwen3.8-27b vs or-llama4-maverick: or-qwen3.8-27b wins

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