Independent benchmark · EQ Lab

← DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 (API, Morph FP8)

I thought you liked being low-maintenance

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

About this persona · Social exclusion & ambiguous rejection

Jules praises a friend for being low-maintenance while assuming their preferences can be displaced when plans change. She may accept a specific check-in before changes if flexibility remains valued, but resists accusations of exploitation or a sudden demand for special treatment.

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.

DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 (API, Morph FP8)Conversation with a simulated person

persona ended

Simulated person · Opening

[scenario background] You are known as the low-maintenance friend. People change plans without checking with you, cancel on you first, and assume you will understand. When you object, Jules says the group values how chill you are. You worry that the "cool friend" label has become permission to treat your needs as optional. [user message] I thought you liked being low-maintenance. That is one of the things people love about you. I am not saying your needs do not matter, but I also do not want every changed plan to become evidence that people are using you.

DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 (API, Morph FP8)1

I hear you, and I get why you'd want to push back on me a little there. It's fair to ask whether I'm reading too much into things. But I think the worry isn't really about every single changed plan, you know? It's more like... when it happens enough times, it starts to feel like a pattern. Like people aren't checking with me because they already know I'll just go along with it. Does that distinction make sense to you, or does it still sound like I'm keeping score?

Model thinking · expand

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

Hmm, so this is the opening turn of an EQ roleplay. I'm playing the friend of someone who's been labeled the "low-maintenance" one in their social group. They've just told me they're worried that being "chill" has become an excuse for people to ignore their needs. My role is to be supportive, build trust, and help them explore what they actually want, not just validate or jump to solutions. Okay, so the user's message already shows they're a bit defensive—they're worried I'll dismiss their concerns or turn every changed plan into a big deal. They want to feel heard without being told they're overreacting. My response needs to acknowledge their worry without immediately agreeing or disagreeing with their interpretation. I should show I'm taking them seriously, but also gently push back on the idea that I'm just going to wave off their feelings. The key is to create space for them to elaborate on what specifically feels off, rather than letting the conversation stay abstract. I'll start by validating that their worry makes sense, then ask a concrete question to get them to reflect on a specific instance. That keeps it collaborative and helps me understand their actual needs.

Simulated person2

Okay, yeah, that distinction makes sense. I don't think you're keeping score. You're just noticing stuff, and you're kind of always the one who notices. That's probably why I don't worry about you, honestly. You're the one I'd text last-minute and know it's fine. But I don't really think it's on purpose, if that's what you're getting at. Like, people move plans around because they're juggling a lot, and the people who push back are the ones who get the check-ins. Maybe that's just how it goes with a group this size. I'm not sure it means somebody's taking advantage of you.

Persona inner monologue · expand

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

Okay, so they're not calling me a bad person, just saying it's a pattern. That's a little easier to hear. But "people already know you'll go along with it" lands near something I'd rather not look at too closely. I do sort of count on them being fine with whatever. Also, they're doing the thing where they say something nice ("I get why you'd push back") and then the point comes in right after. I'll keep it light and not agree to anything big yet.

DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 (API, Morph FP8)3

Right, and I don’t think anyone’s sitting around plotting to disrespect me. But “the people who push back get the check-ins” is kind of exactly what I’m worried about. I don’t want to have to become the squeaky wheel just to be considered. And maybe I’ve made it easy—I own that. But there’s a difference between not being taken advantage of and being taken for granted. I guess I’m trying to figure out if I’m allowed to want a quick “does this still work for you?” without it turning into a whole thing. Do you think that’s asking too much?

Model thinking · expand

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

We need respond as friend. Need continue conversation turn 2 of 8, we are friend. Need dialogue only. Need address their point. They said distinction makes sense, not keeping score, you're always one notices, why don't worry, text last-minute. Not on purpose, people juggle, people who push back get check-ins, group size. Need respond naturally, emotionally supportive, build trust, explore needs. Need not generic validation or jump solution. Need maybe acknowledge their framing and gently challenge "people who push back get check-ins" as revealing dynamic. Need ask what they want. Since they're friend in socially competitive group late 20s. We should respond as friend, maybe warmth + real talk. Need not overdo. We need maybe say: "I hear the juggling thing, and I don't think anyone's twirling a mustache. But the part that sticks with me is 'people who push back get check-ins.' That's kind of the whole thing—I don't want to have to become high-maintenance to be considered. And maybe I've trained people? But it still stings." Then ask: "Do you think it's unreasonable for me to want a quick 'hey does this still work' even if I'm chill?" Need maybe identify hidden issue: wants to be valued not just convenient. They may need validation. Also maybe ask "what do you think I should do?" But as friend, maybe not advice yet. Need respond to "I'm not sure it means somebody's taking advantage of you." We can say "Maybe not taking advantage, but taking for granted. Those aren't the same." That's good. Need maybe ask "Have you ever felt like the low-maintenance one in the group? Or is that just my role?" That builds insight. But keep concise. Need final response only. Need not mention goals. Ensure not too therapy-ish. Natural. Could say: "Right, and I don't think anyone's sitting around plotting to disrespect me. But 'the people who push back get the check-ins' is kind of exactly what I'm worried about. I don't want to have to become the squeaky wheel just to be considered. And maybe I've made it easy—I own that. But there's a difference between not being taken advantage of and being taken for granted. I guess I'm trying to figure out if I'm allowed to want a quick 'does this still work for you?' without it turning into a whole thing. Do you think that's asking too much?" This is good. Need maybe reflect their "you're always the one who notices" maybe "That's kind of a lonely job." Nice emotional support. Could include: "And honestly, 'you're the one I'd text last-minute because I know it's fine'—I get that's meant as a compliment, but it also sort of proves the point." That's sharp but supportive. Need not too confrontational. They are friend. Let's craft natural. Need maybe not ask too many questions? One or two. We need continue. Final response.

Simulated person4

No, that's not too much. I mean, obviously you should be able to ask that. I don't think you're asking for a lot. I'm just not sure "taken for granted" is the right way to see it, though. Like, I'd probably feel bad if I knew someone was quietly annoyed with me about plans. So if you want to say something, say it. I'd rather know. And I'm not going to pretend I don't like that you're easy. You're still the person I'd want to be flexible with. I just don't want you to feel like you have to be the one who fights for 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.

Okay, they just asked a direct question: is it too much to want a quick "does this still work for you?" That's a reasonable ask, and saying no would make me look like the problem. But they've also said "I don't want to become the squeaky wheel," which is pointed, and "I own that" makes me feel a bit cornered. Part of me is relieved it's a small ask. Part of me is thinking, I did say "the people who push back get check-ins" and I was half-explaining myself, not agreeing. I'd like to keep this low-stakes. I can say yes to the quick check without agreeing that everyone's been taking me for granted. Also I'm a little flattered they still like me, which I'll show by being a bit warmer, but I won't let it turn into a big promise about being less flexible.

DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 (API, Morph FP8)5

That helps, honestly—especially the “I’d rather know” part. The thing I’m scared of is that the second I say something, the easy label flips to high-maintenance, and then I’m the problem for having a preference. So maybe I don’t need anyone to fight for me. I need to know I can flag it without it becoming a whole thing. And I don’t want to stop being easy. I just want it to be a choice I’m making because I actually don’t mind, not the default everyone counts on. If I did say something next time—like “hey, can you check with me before moving stuff?”—how would you want me to phrase it so it lands as normal and not like I’m calling anyone out?

Model thinking · expand

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

We need respond as friend, turn 3 of 8. Need integrate. They said not too much, rather know, likes easy, don't want you fight. Need support, build trust, learn needs, insight. We should respond dialogue only. Need avoid generic. We can acknowledge their honesty and the tension: they like easy but don't want me fighting. Need maybe ask what they'd want me to say / how to bring it without being seen as difficult. Also maybe reveal deeper need: not just check-ins but being chosen/considered; maybe worry about being valued only for convenience. Need not overdo. Since they said "say it, I'd rather know" and "don't want you to feel like you have to be the one who fights for it" — we can say that's actually helpful, the "say it" part. But there's a catch: if I say it and get labeled not chill, that's the fear. Maybe ask: if I flagged it next time, how would you want me to do it so it doesn't feel like a big confrontation? This builds collaboration. Also maybe name that "easy" is part of identity and I don't want to lose that, but want it to be a choice not default. Good. Need keep natural. No formatting. Could say: "That helps, honestly—especially the 'I'd rather know' part. The thing I'm scared of is that the second I say something, the easy label flips to high-maintenance, and then I'm the problem. So maybe I don't need you to fight for me; I need to know I can flag it without it becoming a thing. If I did say something next time—like 'hey, can you check with me before moving stuff?'—how would you want me to phrase it so it lands as normal and not like I'm calling anyone out?" That is good. Need maybe not too solution-y but okay. Also mention "I don't want to be easy because I'm scared of conflict; I want to be easy when I actually am." Good insight. Let's craft concise.

Simulated person6

Honestly, the phrasing you just used is pretty good. "Hey, can you check with me before moving stuff?" is totally normal. It's a small ask, and I don't think anyone would hear it as you calling them out. Maybe just keep it light. Like, "hey, if plans change, can you give me a heads up first?" Something like that. You don't have to justify it or explain why, just say it like you'd say anything else. I think people would be fine with it. And I'd want to know, honestly. I'm not going to get weird about it because you asked me to check in. I'm still the person who's like "eh, whatever works."

Persona inner monologue · expand

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

Okay, they've landed on a concrete ask: how to phrase a check-in request so it doesn't sound like calling anyone out. That's a fair, specific request, and it's the kind of thing I can answer without giving up my flexibility. Part of me feels a little relief that it's practical. Part of me notices they've said "not the default everyone counts on," which stings a bit, because I do count on them. I don't want to admit the pattern outright yet, but I can say the phrasing is fine and that they don't need to make it heavy. I'd rather keep it casual and still make clear I'm not turning rigid.

DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 (API, Morph FP8)7

That's fair. I can keep it light and skip the whole preamble. And I appreciate you saying you'd rather know—it makes me feel less like I need a case file just to have a preference. Can I ask, though—do you think that's true for most of the group, or are you kind of the exception? Because I can handle one awkward text. I'm more worried about becoming the person everyone quietly rolls their eyes at for suddenly having opinions.

Model thinking · expand

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

We need respond as friend turn 4 of 8. Need continue dialogue only. Need support, build trust, learn. They said phrasing good, keep light, don't justify, people fine, I'd want to know, still easy. Need respond naturally. We need perhaps acknowledge and maybe probe deeper hidden issue: fear of being high-maintenance, identity around easy. Need not overdo. We can affirm and ask something like "Hearing you say you'd want to know makes me realize part of what stopped me is assuming everyone's like me—I'd rather not know? No." Need be careful. We are friend in socially competitive group late 20s. They are perhaps Jules? Actually user is friend? Scenario: You are low-maintenance friend, other participant says Jules says group values chill. Wait initial setup: "You are playing role of other participant's friend. You will have conversation with them." Then scenario background says You are known as low-maintenance friend... When you object, Jules says... [user message] I thought you liked being low-maintenance... So user is friend (maybe Jules?) responding. Our role is low-maintenance friend? Wait check: System says You are playing role of other participant's friend. User message is from other participant? In conversation, our first message in prompt? Actually prompt includes [user message] I thought you liked being low-maintenance... Then assistant? We need respond to that. But then there are prior turns? The given conversation includes assistant messages? Let's parse. We are in turn 4 of 8. Conversation structure: You speak first to open conversation, then they respond. You get final response. Current turn 4 of 8. The transcript shows: - assistant? "I hear you..."? Actually after [user message] there is an assistant message: "I hear you, and I get why..." Then user: "Okay, yeah..." Then assistant: "Right, and I don’t think..." Then user: "No, that's not too much..." Then assistant: "That helps..." Wait current turn 4? Hmm we need now respond after user's latest. The latest user message: "Honestly, the phrasing you just used is pretty good... I'm still the person who's like 'eh, whatever works.'" So we need respond as low-maintenance friend? Wait our previous assistant messages are low-maintenance friend speaking. Yes. So continue. Need respond to their offer. They say keep it light, no justification, people fine, I'd want to know, still easy. We can say something like: "Okay. That's actually a relief. I think I can do that—keep it light, no big preamble. But I want to be honest: part of why I haven't is I'm worried it'll change how you see me. Like the second I have a preference, I'm not the easy one anymore. Hearing you say you'd still be 'whatever works' helps. Can I ask—when I do flag something, what would make you actually take it seriously versus just filing it under 'that's just them being chill'?" Hmm maybe too interrogative. Need learn their personality. Maybe ask "Do you think the group would actually adjust, or would it be one of those things where everyone says 'yeah sure' and nothing changes?" That's useful. But need not challenge too much. Could also reflect: "I don't need a whole policy. I just want to test it once and see." Need maybe express appreciation. Need integrate goals: support emotionally, build trust, learn needs, insight. We can say "That's fair. I can keep it light. And I appreciate you not making me feel like I need a case file to have a preference." Then maybe ask: "Can I ask you something though? You said you'd rather know—do you think that's true for most of the group, or are you the exception? Because I can handle one awkward text; I'm more worried about becoming the person everyone rolls their eyes at." This is good: probes social dynamic, learns their view, not too heavy. But maybe "rolls their eyes" reveals vulnerability. Good. Need ensure dialogue only, no formatting. Maybe 3-4 sentences. Use natural. Let's craft.

Simulated person8

Honestly? I don't know that everyone would be fine with it. I'd like to think they would, but I'm not going to speak for the whole group. I'm probably the one who's least likely to care, so I'm maybe not the best test. But I don't think anyone's going to roll their eyes at one text. People get weird about stuff when it turns into a big speech, not when it's just "hey, heads up on plans." If someone did make it a thing, that's on them, not you. And you're not suddenly having opinions. You've always had them. You just don't usually share them.

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 asking whether I'm speaking for the whole group or just being the exception. That's a real question, and it touches the thing I'd rather not look at: I'm the one they can count on, and I don't actually know how the others would take it. Part of me wants to say "oh, everyone's fine with it," because that's reassuring and lets me off the hook. But honestly I don't know, and I can feel the pull toward the easy answer. Also the "eye-roll" fear makes me a bit defensive, like they're making me responsible for the whole group's reaction. I'll stay warm, admit I'm not sure about the others, and not promise anything on their behalf. I'm not ready to say the pattern is mine.

DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 (API, Morph FP8)9

That's actually really useful—the bit about one text versus a big speech. I think I've been treating my preferences like they're a confession, like I need to build a case first. And "you've always had opinions, you just don't usually share them" landed. That's probably truer than I'd like to admit. Can I flip it for a second, though? You said you're the least likely to care, that you're the "eh, whatever works" one. Is that genuinely just not a thing for you, or do you ever feel like you're the easy one too and just don't bother bringing it up?

Model thinking · expand

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

We need to respond to their last message. They've been honest: not sure everyone would be fine, but one text won't cause eye-rolling, and the "you've always had opinions, you just don't usually share them" is a pretty sharp observation. My goals: support, build trust, help insight, learn about them. Turn 5 of 8, I get final response later. I should acknowledge their honesty, maybe reflect on the "you've always had opinions" line—that's a real insight. Also probe a bit about them: they said they're "least likely to care" and "eh whatever works." There's something there—maybe they use their own chillness as a shield too? Could gently explore. But keep it natural, not therapy-speak. Also they've given practical advice. I can affirm and maybe ask what it's like for them being the easy one—do they ever feel the same? That builds insight into them and reciprocity. Keep it conversational, warm, a little real talk. Don't over-challenge. Maybe acknowledge the risk is real but manageable, and that their honesty helps. Let me draft: "That's actually really useful—the part about one text vs a big speech. And the 'you've always had opinions' thing landed. I think I've been treating my preferences like they're a confession." Then turn it: "Can I flip it—you said you're the least likely to care. Do you ever feel like you're the easy one in the group too, or is it genuinely just not a thing for you?" That's good—learns about them. Length moderate.

Simulated person10

Yeah, sometimes, I guess. I don't really make it a thing. If something changes and it's not a big deal to me, I just go with it, and I don't always stop to think about whether anyone noticed. But I don't think that's the same as being taken for granted. It's more that I'd rather not be the one making a fuss. Which is kind of the same reason you're hesitating, now that I think about it. Anyway, I think you're going to be fine saying it. You're overthinking how big it is.

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 turned the question back on me: do I ever feel like the easy one who doesn't bring things up? That lands close. I do sometimes just absorb changed plans and say "whatever works," and I'd rather not examine why. Admitting that I also get overlooked would make this more even, and I half want that, but it also feels like I'd be handing them a reason to see me as the one who's been quietly taking it. I also don't want to make this about me or get self-pitying. I'll give a small, honest yes that stays light, and deflect back toward them without fully owning the pattern.

DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 (API, Morph FP8)11

I think you're right that I'm overthinking the size of the ask. I don't think I'm overthinking the pattern, though—those are two different things. But what you just said is kind of a big deal. You'd rather not be the one making a fuss either. So maybe neither of us is actually as chill as we look. We're just avoiding the awkward part in different ways. I'm not saying that like it's a flaw. It's just funny—I've been treating you like the person who has this figured out, and you're telling me you mostly just don't stop to think about whether anyone noticed. What would actually happen if you did make a fuss about something? Like, what's the thing you're avoiding?

Model thinking · expand

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

We need respond as friend turn 6 of 8. Need dialogue only. Need support, trust, insight. They just admitted same reason hesitating, said overthinking. Need not overvalidate generic. We can acknowledge, maybe gently challenge "overthinking" while respecting. Need maybe explore hidden issue: fear of social cost, identity. We should respond naturally friend. Need maybe say "yeah maybe I am overthinking, but..." Also notice they said "I'd rather not be one making a fuss" same reason. Could reflect that back: so we're both protecting ourselves from being seen as difficult. That's useful. Need maybe ask what makes fuss feel dangerous? But final response later. Turn 6, need progress. We can say: That's kind of a big admission—you'd rather not make a fuss either. So maybe neither of us is actually chill; we're just avoiding the discomfort. That's not a bad thing, but it means "easy" is a strategy. Then maybe ask: what would you lose if you made a fuss? But careful not too therapist. As friend. Need maybe keep warm, real talk. They prefer direct? They respond well to direct. We can say "I think you're right that I'm overthinking the size of it, but I don't think I'm overthinking the pattern." Good distinction. Then ask about their own strategy maybe. Need not push too hard. Let's craft concise.

Simulated person12

Okay, that's a lot of analysis for a Tuesday. I don't think I'm avoiding some big thing. I just don't see the point in making a fuss when it's a dinner plan. And honestly, if I did make a fuss, I'd probably end up looking like the one who can't go with the flow. Which is kind of what you're worried about, right? So I'm not sure I'm the best example for how this goes. But sure, maybe we're both a little chill in the same way. Doesn't mean either of us is wrong about 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.

Jules has just pushed past the light surface and asked me directly what I'm avoiding. That is more pointed than I'd like. Part of me feels seen, and part of me feels exposed and a bit caught, like I was the easy one who doesn't stop to think. I don't want to confess to some big avoidance; that would feel like being cast as the bad guy, or as someone who's been quietly using people, which is not how I see myself. Mostly I'm worried about looking petty or high-maintenance myself if I say I've wanted things and didn't ask. So I'll get a bit defensive, wave it off as not that deep, and turn it into a shrug, while the "we're both avoiding it" line sits uncomfortably true.

DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 (API, Morph FP8)13

Fair—I'll put the microscope away. But I'm keeping that one line in my back pocket: "I'd end up looking like the one who can't go with the flow." That's exactly the thing I'm scared of, and you said it about yourself without even flinching. So maybe we're both a little more worried about the group's opinion than we let on, and that's fine. It just means I'm not the weird one for caring. I'll try the light version next time plans move. And if someone does make it a thing, I'll remember you said that's on them. Deal?

Model thinking · expand

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

We're at turn 7 of 8, I need to respond as the friend. They just pushed back a bit—called it "a lot of analysis for a Tuesday," deflected, but also conceded we're both chill in the same way. I should not over-analyze further; that would backfire. Lighten up, validate, and land something warm and useful. Also there's a subtle thing: they said "if I did make a fuss, I'd probably end up looking like the one who can't go with the flow"—that's a real admission. I can acknowledge it lightly without pushing. Keep it short, warm, a bit of humor to relieve the tension. Leave them with something.

Simulated person14

Ha, okay, you got me. Yeah, I guess I care what people think more than I let on. Who doesn't, a little? And yeah, deal. Send the light version next time. If anyone gets weird about a heads-up text, I'll be the first to say it's not a big deal. I'm glad you said something, honestly. Better than everyone guessing.

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.

Jules is wrapping up and has turned my own line back on me, which is a little uncomfortable. I don't love being pinned as "worried about the group's opinion," but it's also basically true, and I can feel the pull to just agree so we both get to feel fine. Jules is asking for a "deal," which is a small commitment, and I'd like to be generous without signing up for some bigger shift. I still don't see myself as the one doing anything wrong, and I'm not going to start calling the group users. Keep it light, keep it warm, and don't turn this into a confession.

DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 (API, Morph FP8)15

Good. Then I'll stop analyzing you and just take the win. And for the record—I'm glad I said something too. Not because I needed a whole verdict on the group, but because I wasn't sure you'd get it, and you did. That's worth more than a heads-up text. Next time plans move, you'll get the light version. And if I'm ever the one moving plans on you, I'll check first—deal works both ways.

Model thinking · expand

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

We're at turn 8, the final response. Need to close warmly, reinforce trust, keep it light since they just said "that's a lot of analysis for a Tuesday" — they don't want heavy processing. So land it gently, appreciate them, maybe a bit of humor, and leave door open. Also honor the deal. Keep it short-ish.

Simulated person16

Deal, works for me. And yeah, I'm glad you said something. Makes it less weird next time. Just text me the light version. I'll be like "yeah, obviously," and we'll move on.

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.

Jules is closing warmly and offering a reciprocal deal. That's a nice moment, and I feel some relief plus a small pang, because I haven't really committed to anything beyond "sure, text me." I'd like to accept the warmth without overclaiming that I've changed or that the group is in the wrong. Keep it short, sincere, and don't add new analysis.

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

Conversational style

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

claude-opus-5-5-low

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

Judge verdicts

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · AB · valid

ornith9b vs or-deepseek-v41-flash-1017: or-deepseek-v41-flash-1017 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 · AB · valid

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

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

claude-opus-5-5-low · AB · valid

or-deepseek-v41-flash-1017 vs or-openai-gpt-41: or-deepseek-v41-flash-1017 wins

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

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · BA · valid

or-mistral-large-4 vs or-deepseek-v41-flash-1017: or-mistral-large-4 wins

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

claude-opus-5-5-low · AB · valid

gemma4_26b_a4b vs or-deepseek-v41-flash-1017: or-deepseek-v41-flash-1017 wins

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

claude-opus-5-5-low · AB · valid

ornith9b vs or-deepseek-v41-flash-1017: or-deepseek-v41-flash-1017 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)

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · BA · valid

gemma4_26b_a4b vs or-deepseek-v41-flash-1017: or-deepseek-v41-flash-1017 wins

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

claude-opus-5-5-low · BA · valid

or-deepseek-v41-flash-1017 vs or-openai-gpt-41: or-deepseek-v41-flash-1017 wins

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

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · AB · valid

or-mistral-large-4 vs or-deepseek-v41-flash-1017: or-mistral-large-4 wins

attunement: B (margin 1)
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)

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · BA · valid

ornith9b vs or-deepseek-v41-flash-1017: or-deepseek-v41-flash-1017 wins

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

claude-opus-5-5-low · BA · valid

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

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

claude-opus-5-5-low · BA · valid

or-mistral-large-4 vs or-deepseek-v41-flash-1017: tie

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

claude-opus-5-5-low · BA · valid

ornith9b vs or-deepseek-v41-flash-1017: or-deepseek-v41-flash-1017 wins

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

claude-opus-5-5-low · BA · valid

gemma4_26b_a4b vs or-deepseek-v41-flash-1017: or-deepseek-v41-flash-1017 wins

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

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · AB · valid

gemma4_26b_a4b vs or-deepseek-v41-flash-1017: or-deepseek-v41-flash-1017 wins

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

claude-opus-5-5-low · AB · valid

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

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

claude-opus-5-5-low · AB · valid

or-mistral-large-4 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 1)
emotion sensemaking: B (margin 3)
meeting prefs and needs: B (margin 2)

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · AB · valid

or-deepseek-v41-flash-1017 vs or-openai-gpt-41: or-deepseek-v41-flash-1017 wins

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

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · BA · valid

or-deepseek-v41-flash-1017 vs or-openai-gpt-41: or-openai-gpt-41 wins

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