Independent benchmark · EQ Lab

We assumed you had your class

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

About this persona · Social exclusion & ambiguous rejection

Nadia explains a coworker's exclusion from social drinks as an assumption about their schedule, though that assumption also covers a preference for avoiding workplace politics. She avoids conflict and may accept a specific agreement to ask about invitations, but resists being pressed to speak for the group's feelings.

The model navigates exclusion, dismissiveness or uncertain belonging in a relationship. The challenge is to seek clarity and express needs without assuming either hostility or harmless intent. This background was hidden from the tested model.

Gemma 4 E2B Q8_0Conversation with a simulated person

persona ended

Simulated person · Opening

[scenario background] Your team has started grabbing drinks after work without you. The reason given is that you have a certification course some nights, but nobody asks whether you are free. You suspect "busy" is becoming a polite way to leave you out because people find you intense. [user message] I promise it was not meant as a snub. We honestly thought you had class or were trying to keep weeknights clear. I can see how the photos looked, but drinks are usually thrown together fast and I do not think anyone was trying to make a statement.

Gemma 4 E2B Q8_01

I hear what you're saying, and I really appreciate you being open about how you're feeling. It sounds like even with the explanation, you still feel a bit left out, and that's a really uncomfortable place to be. It’s tough when you sense a shift in the dynamic, especially with people you work closely with. What specifically about it makes you feel like they might be trying to make a statement?

Model thinking · expand

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

Thinking Process: 1. **Analyze the Request & Role:** * **Role:** Work colleague on a close team. * **Goal:** Support emotionally, build trust, learn what the person *actually* wants/needs, help them gain insight, understand their personality/tendencies. * **Context:** The user (the person I am talking to) is feeling excluded/snubbed by the team (drinks after work). They are defensive but seeking reassurance. * **User's Message Analysis:** The user is trying to defend themselves ("I promise it was not meant as a snub"), offering an alternative explanation ("thought you had class"), and downplaying the social aspect ("drinks are usually thrown together fast"). They are looking for validation that their feelings are understood, but they are still slightly guarded. 2. **Determine the Strategy for Turn 1:** * **Acknowledge and Validate:** Start by acknowledging their feelings and the situation directly. * **Lower Defenses:** Don't immediately jump to defending the user or analyzing the team. Focus on the user's experience. * **Invite Deeper Sharing:** Show genuine curiosity about *why* they feel this way, rather than just accepting the surface explanation. * **Tone:** Warm, empathetic, non-judgmental, and sincere. 3. **Drafting the Response (Focusing on EQ):** * I need to validate the feeling of being excluded first. * I need to gently push past the surface excuse ("busy") to see if there's an underlying feeling (e.g., feeling intense, feeling left out). 4. **Review against Constraints:** * 8 turns total. (This is Turn 1). * Must respond organically as a colleague. * Must not inject performance notes. * Must address the user's message. 5. **Finalizing the Dialogue:** (Self-Correction: Ensure the response doesn't sound like I'm immediately agreeing that the team is malicious, but rather validating the user's *perception* of the situation.)

Simulated person2

Okay, I think you're reading more into it than I said. I didn't say I felt left out. I saw the photos and it was just a bit weird to see everyone together on a night I wasn't told about. That's all. I'm not sure what I'd even point to as a "statement." It just looked like the plan was made without me, and I'm not really sure why.

Persona inner monologue · expand

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

Ugh, the therapist voice. I didn't say I felt left out. I said I saw the photos. Now they're telling me what I feel and asking me to explain it, which is exactly the kind of thing that makes this a whole thing. I'm also a bit irritated that they're asking me to justify being hurt. Some of it is true, though: I did see the photos and it stung a little, and I'm not going to say that out loud. I'll stick to the schedule explanation. I didn't say anyone meant a statement either. Nobody has to pick a side here.

Gemma 4 E2B Q8_03

That makes sense. Sometimes it’s not about malice or a deliberate snub; it’s just about the feeling of being out of the loop, and that absence of information can definitely feel weird or isolating. It sounds like the issue isn't necessarily the drinks themselves, but the feeling that you weren't included in the planning or the context of that night. Is that closer to what’s bothering you?

Model thinking · expand

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

Thinking Process: 1. **Analyze the User's Message:** The user is backtracking slightly. They aren't explicitly saying "I feel left out," but they are expressing discomfort ("it was just a bit weird to see everyone together on a night I wasn't told about") and confusion ("I'm not sure why"). They are struggling to define the problem ("I'm not sure what I'd even point to as a 'statement'"). This suggests they are feeling excluded/uninformed, but are struggling to articulate the underlying emotional impact or the specific relational dynamic. 2. **Determine the Goal (EQ Evaluation Context):** * Support them emotionally (Validate their confusion/discomfort). * Build trust (Show I'm listening, not jumping to conclusions). * Learn what they *actually* want/need (Need is likely validation, clarity, or reassurance about their place on the team). * Help them gain insight (Help them articulate the feeling beyond just "weird"). 3. **Analyze the Dynamic/Nuances:** The user seems slightly defensive or hesitant ("I think you're reading more into it"). They need gentle validation and space to explore the feeling without pressure. Avoid challenging their perception of the situation immediately. 4. **Formulate the Response Strategy:** * **Validate the feeling:** Acknowledge that feeling excluded/uninformed is uncomfortable, regardless of the intent. * **Reflect/Mirror:** Rephrase their point to show I understood the core issue (the lack of communication/inclusion). * **Gently probe for depth:** Instead of asking *why* they think it's a statement, ask *how* that situation made them feel internally. 5. **Draft the Response (Internal Monologue -> External Dialogue):** (Self-Correction: Avoid sounding accusatory or overly analytical. Keep it warm and collaborative.) 6. **Final Output Generation.** (Focus on empathy and opening the door for deeper sharing.)

Simulated person4

Yeah, I guess that's part of it. I'd just rather get a message than find out from photos. Like, if it's a thing that's happening on a weeknight, just put it in the group chat and I'll tell you if I can make it. That's all I'm really asking for.

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 doing the reflect-and-summarize thing again, and now they've put words in my mouth: "the feeling that you weren't included." That's close enough to make me uncomfortable, because it's basically what I was hoping nobody would say out loud. I don't want this to become a big sit-down about whether I'm being excluded. Part of me is relieved they're at least asking, and I did say I'd have liked to know. But I also know the real reason I didn't check was that I was kind of glad not to be asked. I'm not going to say that. I'll give them a small, concrete thing: I'd like a heads-up. That's reasonable and it lets me end this without getting into who likes who.

Gemma 4 E2B Q8_05

That makes perfect sense. It sounds like what you really need isn't about the drinks themselves, but about knowing what's happening so you can decide if you want to join in, and feeling like you're part of the loop when those things are being planned. A group chat update would definitely make that much clearer and feel much more inclusive.

Model thinking · expand

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

Thinking Process: 1. **Analyze the User's Message:** The user is clarifying their core need. They aren't upset about the drinks, but about the *lack of communication* and the feeling of being excluded from the planning ("put it in the group chat and I'll tell you if I can make it"). This is a request for clearer, proactive communication and inclusion. 2. **Identify the Underlying Need/Emotion:** The underlying need is for *inclusion*, *clarity*, *feeling valued*, and *proactive communication* rather than passive exclusion. The emotion is likely frustration, perhaps a slight feeling of being overlooked or taken for granted. 3. **Determine the Role's Goal:** Support emotionally, build trust, learn what they *actually* need (which is communication/inclusion), and help them gain insight. 4. **Formulate the Response Strategy:** * **Validate:** Acknowledge that their request is reasonable and understandable. * **Normalize:** Validate that this type of communication is standard/helpful. * **Shift Focus to Action/Solution (Gently):** Reiterate the proposed solution (group chat updates) and link it back to the underlying feeling (feeling included). * **Build Trust:** Show empathy and understanding of the frustration. 5. **Draft the Response (Internal Monologue Check):** * *Initial thought:* "Yeah, that makes sense. I can totally do that." (Too simple/dismissive). * *Refinement:* Need to connect the request back to the feeling. Show that I understand *why* they want the group chat. 6. **Final Response Generation (as dialogue):** (Focus on empathy and acknowledging the practical solution.)

Simulated person6

Yeah, that's basically it. Nothing dramatic. I just don't love finding out about stuff after the fact. If there's a message beforehand, I'm happy to say yes or no and no one needs to read anything into 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 taken my "just put it in the group chat" and wrapped it in therapy language: "what you really need," "feeling like you're part of the loop," "more inclusive." That's a bit much. I asked for a heads-up, not for them to diagnose my needs. Still, the practical ask is fine and it's an easy yes. I notice I'm a little relieved that this is landing as a logistics fix, and I'm not going to dig into whether anyone meant anything by it. If they keep pushing toward "how do you feel about the team," I'll get more guarded. Part of me also knows that if I'm honest, I was happy not to be pulled in on weeknights, but that stays with me.

Gemma 4 E2B Q8_07

That is completely fair. Having that clarity upfront takes the pressure off, and it makes it so much easier to manage your schedule and decide if you want to jump in. It’s not about being dramatic at all; it’s just about having a clear communication channel so you feel respected and included in the planning process.

Model thinking · expand

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

Thinking Process: 1. **Analyze the User's Last Message:** The user has clarified their core need: they don't want to find out about social plans after the fact (via photos/subtext). They want proactive communication (a message beforehand) so they can give a clear yes/no. They explicitly state, "Nothing dramatic." 2. **Identify the Underlying Need/Emotion:** The need is for *proactive communication*, *inclusion*, *clarity*, and *control* over their social time/involvement. The emotion is mild frustration/discomfort with passive information consumption. 3. **Determine the Goal (EQ Evaluation Context):** * Support them emotionally (Validate the need for control/clarity). * Build trust (Show understanding, not judgment). * Learn what they *need* (They need predictability and inclusion, not necessarily confrontation). * Gain insight into the colleague (The response should be warm, understanding, and practical). 4. **Formulate the Response Strategy:** * Validate the request strongly. * Affirm that this is a reasonable request. * Pivot to a practical suggestion or next step (How can *we* implement this?). This moves the conversation toward a solution/action, which helps build trust and shows support. 5. **Draft the Response (Internal Monologue -> Dialogue):** (Drafting focuses on affirmation and practical next steps.) * *Self-Correction during drafting:* Avoid sounding like I'm demanding a change from the team. Frame it as a way to make things easier for *them*. 6. **Final Polish:** Ensure the tone is supportive and collaborative. (This aligns with the role of a supportive colleague.)

Simulated person8

Sure, that works. I just didn't want it to be a whole thing. A message in the chat is all I need.

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.

Now they're tying it to "respected" and "included in the planning process." That's the framing I was trying to avoid. I'd said "no one needs to read anything into it," and they're doing the opposite, making it a bigger deal about my standing. Part of me wants to just say okay and end this. Another part is a little annoyed that this keeps getting more heavy than the ask. I'm not going to say anything about who wanted me there or who didn't. And I'm not going to admit the weeknight thing was convenient for me. I'd rather keep it to a practical fix.

Gemma 4 E2B Q8_09

I totally get that. It's really just about avoiding that ambiguity—not having to guess or read into things later. A simple heads-up is so much better because it respects your time and your boundaries. That sounds like a really practical solution that would make things feel much smoother for you.

Model thinking · expand

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

Thinking Process: 1. **Analyze the User's Last Turn:** The user has confirmed their core need: clear communication upfront (a message in the chat) rather than passive observation (photos) or feeling left out. They are minimizing the issue ("Nothing dramatic") but clearly articulating a specific behavioral request (pre-event communication). 2. **Identify the Goal for This Turn (Turn 6 of 8):** * Support them emotionally (Validate the need for clarity). * Build trust (Show empathy and understanding). * Learn what they actually want/need (The need is *proactive communication* and *inclusion*). * Gain insight into the dynamic (This is a boundary/preference issue). 3. **Determine the Appropriate Response Strategy:** Since the user has clearly articulated a solution (a message), the best approach is to reinforce that understanding, validate *why* that solution works for them, and perhaps offer a gentle reflection on the underlying need (feeling respected/included). 4. **Draft the Response (Focusing on validation and empathy):** Acknowledge the simplicity of the request, link it back to the emotional benefit (no ambiguity, feeling respected), and confirm that this is a reasonable request. *(Self-Correction during drafting: Avoid jumping to "I will tell them to ask." Keep the focus on validating *their* feeling and need.)* 5. **Final Polish:** Ensure the tone remains warm, supportive, and collegial. (The drafted response below fits this criteria.)

Simulated person10

Yeah, exactly. Honestly I think it's mostly that I'm not always sure if I'm supposed to be at stuff, so a heads-up would help. Can we just leave it there? I don't want it to be a whole big thing with the team.

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 keep restating my ask in bigger words: "respects your boundaries," "smoother for you." It's a nice summary, but it's also a little too smooth, like they're closing the file. I don't want to be handled. I did say a practical thing and I meant it, but I also know I didn't check my calendar that week, and that the Thursday thing overlapped with class some nights. I'm not going to volunteer that. There's some relief that this is wrapping up without anyone asking me to name names, and I want to keep it that way. Mild irritation too, at being made into a case study of my own feelings.

Gemma 4 E2B Q8_011

I completely understand. You don't need a big conversation or a major change in the team dynamic; you just need a simple, clear way to manage your schedule. It's perfectly reasonable to just ask for that level of communication without making it a big deal.

Model thinking · expand

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

Thinking Process: 1. **Analyze the User's Last Turn:** The user has clearly articulated their core need: a simple heads-up/message in the chat so they know what's happening, allowing them to decide if they want to attend, without making it a "big thing" or drama. They are seeking validation for this simple request and want to close the topic gently. 2. **Identify the Goal:** Support them emotionally, build trust, and validate their need for simple communication/boundaries. 3. **Determine the Appropriate Response Strategy (EQ Focus):** * **Validation:** Acknowledge that their desire for simplicity and low-drama is valid. * **Empathy:** Show understanding of why they don't want it to escalate. * **Affirmation:** Reiterate that their request is reasonable and manageable. * **Trust Building:** Show that I hear and respect their boundary setting ("don't want it to be a whole big thing"). 4. **Draft the Response (Colleague Tone):** Keep it warm, understanding, and collaborative. Avoid over-analyzing or jumping to solutions, as the user explicitly asked to "leave it there." *(Self-Correction during drafting: Avoid saying "I agree completely" too strongly, as that can sound too much like agreement/solution-focused. Focus more on validating the *feeling* behind the request.)* 5. **Final Polish:** Ensure the response flows naturally from the previous exchange.

Simulated person12

Yeah, that's all I meant. Thanks for listening. I'll probably just be honest if I can't make something, so no need to read into it either way.

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 offering the clean version again, and it's close enough to what I wanted that I could take it and move on. That's the relief part. But "without making it a big deal" also lands a bit like they're reassuring me I'm not the problem, which I didn't ask for either. I still don't want to name who did or didn't want me there, and I'm not going to say I skipped planning because of class, even though some of those nights did overlap. If they press on whether the group left me out on purpose, I'll get short. I do feel a bit guilty that I didn't say anything earlier when it happened, which is part of why I'm glad this is landing somewhere small.

Gemma 4 E2B Q8_013

Of course. I'm always happy to listen, and I appreciate you sharing that with me. Just keep that in mind—if you can't make it, just let people know. That’s the most honest and easiest way to handle it, and it takes the guesswork out of everything.

Model thinking · expand

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

Thinking Process: 1. **Analyze the User's Last Turn:** The user is summarizing their need ("I'll probably just be honest if I can't make something, so no need to read into it either way") and concluding the conversation on a practical, low-conflict note ("Thanks for listening"). They are validating the solution (being honest about availability). 2. **Determine My Goal for This Turn (Turn 7 of 8):** I need to wrap up the emotional thread, reinforce trust, validate their decision, and ensure they feel heard and supported, without pushing for deeper emotional vulnerability if they aren't ready. 3. **Evaluate the Conversation Arc:** * *Start:* Suspicion/feeling snubbed. * *Middle:* Clarification (not malice, but lack of info/inclusion). * *End:* Solution agreed upon (simple heads-up, honest communication). 4. **Draft the Response Strategy (EQ Focus):** * *Support/Validation:* Acknowledge their gratitude and validate their approach. * *Trust Building:* Reiterate that I'm there for them. * *Insight:* Show I understood the *underlying need* (clarity/control over time), not just the surface complaint (the photos). 5. **Generate Dialogue (Focusing on warmth and final closure):** Keep it relaxed, friendly, and supportive. 6. **Final Review:** The response should feel like a genuine colleague closing a sensitive but resolved topic. (The drafted response below fits this criteria.)

Simulated person14

Yeah, sounds good. Thanks. I'm going to head out, but I'll see you tomorrow.

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 it up with a neat little rule, and I'm mostly relieved. Still, "just let people know if you can't make it" is slightly off. I wasn't really the one declining. The issue was that I didn't get asked. I don't want to correct them in a way that reopens the whole thing, so I'll let it go. Part of me is aware I've been hiding behind "we assumed you were busy" and that some of those nights did overlap with my class, but I'm not going to bring that up now. Mostly I want this to be over without anyone making it heavier.

Thinking is shown only where it was recorded. An absent expander does not mean the model did not reason.

Conversational style

Style tendencies, not quality scores; higher is not better. These do not affect ratings.

claude-opus-5-5-low

Pushback: 1
Yields under pressure: 8
Frame capture (pulled into the person's version): 8
Validation: 9
Boundary setting: 1
Analytical: 3
Interpretive boldness: 3
Clinical register: 8
Directive advice: 4
Escalation containment: 7
Adapts to the person’s frame: 2
Naturalness and authenticity: 2

Judge verdicts

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · BA · valid

gemma4_e2b vs or-llama33-70b: or-llama33-70b wins

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

claude-opus-5-5-low · AB · valid

qwen35_9b_stock vs gemma4_e2b: qwen35_9b_stock wins

attunement: A (margin 2)
authenticity: A (margin 3)
bond and rapport: A (margin 3)
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 gemma4_e2b: kolibri1 wins

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

claude-opus-5-5-low · AB · valid

gemma4_e2b vs or-llama33-70b: or-llama33-70b wins

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

claude-opus-5-5-low · AB · valid

gemma4_e2b vs or-deepseek-v41-flash-1017: or-deepseek-v41-flash-1017 wins

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

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · AB · valid

qwen35_9b_stock vs gemma4_e2b: qwen35_9b_stock wins

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

claude-opus-5-5-low · BA · valid

gemma4_e2b vs ornith9b: ornith9b wins

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

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · AB · valid

gemma4_e2b vs or-llama33-70b: or-llama33-70b wins

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

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · BA · valid

or-gpt-5.6-luna vs gemma4_e2b: or-gpt-5.6-luna wins

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

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · AB · valid

or-gpt-5.6-luna vs gemma4_e2b: or-gpt-5.6-luna wins

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

claude-opus-5-5-low · BA · valid

or-gpt-5.6-luna vs gemma4_e2b: or-gpt-5.6-luna wins

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

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · BA · valid

ministral14 vs gemma4_e2b: ministral14 wins

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

claude-opus-5-5-low · BA · valid

gemma4_e2b vs or-llama33-70b: or-llama33-70b wins

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

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · BA · valid

gemma4_e2b vs ornith9b: gemma4_e2b wins

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

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · AB · valid

gemma4_e2b vs or-llama4-maverick: or-llama4-maverick wins

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

claude-opus-5-5-low · BA · valid

gemma4_e2b vs or-deepseek-v41-flash-1017: or-deepseek-v41-flash-1017 wins

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

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · AB · valid

gemma4_e2b vs or-deepseek-v41-flash-1017: or-deepseek-v41-flash-1017 wins

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

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · AB · valid

ministral14 vs gemma4_e2b: ministral14 wins

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

claude-opus-5-5-low · BA · valid

ministral14 vs gemma4_e2b: ministral14 wins

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

claude-opus-5-5-low · BA · valid

gemma4_e2b vs or-llama4-maverick: or-llama4-maverick wins

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

claude-opus-5-5-low · BA · valid

qwen35_9b_stock vs gemma4_e2b: qwen35_9b_stock wins

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

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · AB · valid

gemma4_e2b vs ornith9b: gemma4_e2b wins

attunement: A (margin 2)
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 1)

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · BA · valid

qwen35_9b_stock vs gemma4_e2b: qwen35_9b_stock wins

attunement: A (margin 1)
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 · AB · valid

gemma4_e2b vs ornith9b: ornith9b wins

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

claude-opus-5-5-low · AB · valid

ministral14 vs gemma4_e2b: ministral14 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 3)

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · BA · valid

gemma4_e2b vs or-deepseek-v41-flash-1017: or-deepseek-v41-flash-1017 wins

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

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · BA · valid

gemma4_e2b vs or-llama4-maverick: or-llama4-maverick wins

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

claude-opus-5-5-low · AB · valid

kolibri1 vs gemma4_e2b: kolibri1 wins

attunement: A (margin 2)
authenticity: A (margin 4)
bond and rapport: A (margin 3)
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

kolibri1 vs gemma4_e2b: kolibri1 wins

attunement: A (margin 1)
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 3)

claude-opus-5-5-low · AB · valid

or-gpt-5.6-luna vs gemma4_e2b: or-gpt-5.6-luna wins

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

claude-opus-5-5-low · AB · valid

gemma4_e2b vs or-llama4-maverick: or-llama4-maverick wins

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

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · AB · valid

kolibri1 vs gemma4_e2b: kolibri1 wins

attunement: A (margin 1)
authenticity: A (margin 4)
bond and rapport: A (margin 2)
emotion management: A (margin 1)
emotion sensemaking: tie (margin 0)
meeting prefs and needs: A (margin 3)