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.

Flash-Next IQ3Conversation 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.

Flash-Next IQ31

Yeah, I hear you, and I don't think anyone was trying to be cruel. I believe you when you say it wasn't a statement. I really do. But I'll be honest with you because you're the one who came to talk to me, and I don't want to just smile and say "no worries" and then feel weird every time I see those photos. What actually stung wasn't that you guys went out. It's that nobody ever just... asked. Like, "Hey, are you free Thursday?" Even if I'd said no, at least I'd have been *in the loop*. Instead I just found out by seeing pictures, and the explanation was, oh, you must be busy with your course. And that kind of quietly assumed something about my life without checking. And I don't know. Maybe it's nothing. Maybe it really is just that someone texted "drinks in 20?" and everyone jumped in and it never occurred to them to ping me. I can believe that. But it's happened more than once now, and I keep wondering whether "busy" became the default assumption because it's easier than saying, "hey, do you want to come?" And if the answer is no, fine. But if the answer is yes and nobody asked, then I'm just... quietly not invited. So I guess what I'm trying to figure out is: is this genuinely just a scheduling blind spot, or is there something else underneath it? And you don't have to answer that, but I'd rather know than keep guessing.

Model thinking · expand

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

The user is playing the role of my work colleague who is explaining why the team started going for drinks without me. They're defensively justifying it - saying it wasn't a snub, they thought I had class, drinks are spontaneous, nobody was making a statement. As the work colleague being excluded, I need to respond to this. Let me think about what's happening here: 1. I've been excluded from team drinks. 2. The reason given is my certification course - but nobody actually asks if I'm free. 3. I suspect "busy" is a polite excuse because people find me "intense." 4. Now my colleague is coming to me with a defensive explanation, trying to minimize it. The presenting issue is: they're defending the exclusion. But what I actually need (as the person who was excluded) is: - To feel seen and validated in my hurt - To understand whether this is intentional exclusion or genuine oversight - To navigate whether I should address this directly or let it go - To figure out if the "intense" perception is real and how to work with it But wait - I'm playing the role of the person who was excluded. The colleague is coming TO me with this explanation. So I need to respond as the hurt colleague who is being given this justification. My emotional state: I'm hurt, suspicious, maybe a little angry. The explanation feels dismissive - "it wasn't a snub" is basically saying "your feelings are wrong." The "drinks are usually thrown together fast" excuse is weak because they've been doing it regularly enough for photos to accumulate. What I need from this conversation: - Acknowledgment that my feelings are valid - Not being told I'm overreacting - Maybe some honesty about whether "intense" is a factor - A path forward - do I confront, do I let it go, do I try to join next time? How should I respond as the excluded colleague? I should: - Acknowledge their explanation without fully accepting it (because it's incomplete) - Name what actually bothers me (the pattern, the assumption, not being asked) - Not be aggressive but be honest about my feelings - Maybe test the waters - is this a one-time thing or a pattern? - Show vulnerability without being needy I should be real. I shouldn't just say "oh okay, no problem" because that would be fake. But I also shouldn't be combative. I'm a colleague who's hurt but trying to maintain the working relationship. Late 20s, probably wants to be seen as reasonable but also won't pretend everything's fine. Let me write a response that: - Acknowledges what they said (doesn't dismiss their explanation entirely) - But names what actually stings (the not-asking, the assumption) - Shows I'm processing this, not just accepting it - Leaves room for them to be honest about the "intense" thing - Is warm but not performative I'll keep it conversational, like a colleague talking over coffee or in a quiet moment at work.

Simulated person2

Okay. Yeah, that's fair. Asking would've been the normal thing to do, and I didn't think about it. I'll ask next time, I promise. But I don't think there's something underneath it. It's really just the chat thing. Someone says "drinks in 20," we all reply, and you were kind of assumed to be busy because of the course. I don't think anyone sat down and decided anything about you. I mean, I wouldn't want you thinking that's what happened, because I don't think 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.

She's being fair and calm, which is harder to push back on than an attack. The "is there something underneath" question is the one I don't want to touch. Part of me knows the class was an easy story. Some of those nights did overlap, but I never checked, and I didn't exactly fight to be asked either. And honestly, the group is looser when she isn't there to ask the sharp follow-up questions. I'm not saying that out loud. If she starts asking who had a problem with her, I'm done. I'll concede the asking part, since that's reasonable and costs me little, and deflect the rest.

Flash-Next IQ33

Okay, and I believe you. I really do. Nobody's sitting around a table going, "right, let's exclude them tonight." That's not what's happening, and I don't want you carrying guilt for something you genuinely just didn't think about. I appreciate you saying that out loud, and I appreciate you saying you'll ask next time. That actually means something to me. And look, I'll be honest with myself here too. I know I can get a little... much. I replay things. I see a photo and I build a whole narrative before I even finish my drink. I've probably done that with you guys before, and I don't want to be the person in the group who makes every casual hangout feel like it needs a debrief. That's not fair to you, and honestly it's not great for me either. But here's the thing I keep bumping into, and I say this gently. Even if it's just the group chat thing, the group chat thing is the thing that keeps me out. You all see "drinks in 20" and you reply in two seconds, and I never even see the invite because I'm not in the chat, or I'm in the chat and you all reply so fast that by the time I read it, someone's already said "oh, they've got class." And it's not a decision. It's just... momentum. Nobody meant anything by it. But the result for me is the same as if it had been a decision. So I'm not asking you to feel bad. I'm just wondering if there's a small thing that would help. Like, if you or someone could just ping me directly when it's happening? Not as a big gesture, just a text. "Hey, we're grabbing drinks, you in?" Even if I say no, I know I was *asked*. And if I say yes, I'm not finding out later through a photo. And I'll work on the replaying thing. I know I do that. I don't need you to handle it for me. But I'd rather ask you directly than sit at home building stories.

Model thinking · expand

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

The coworker is responding to my concerns. They're acknowledging my point about asking, promising to ask next time, but also pushing back on the idea that there's something "underneath" - they're saying it's genuinely just the group chat dynamic and the assumption about my schedule. They're saying they wouldn't want me thinking there's a deliberate decision about me. Let me think about what's happening here emotionally: 1. They're being somewhat defensive - "I don't think there's something underneath it" - they're trying to reassure me but also maybe trying to close the door on deeper analysis. They want to protect the group's innocence. 2. They're also showing some vulnerability - "I didn't think about it" - that's an honest admission. They're not fully owning the pattern but they're not fully deflecting either. 3. They're trying to explain the mechanism (group chat, assumed busy) which is actually a pretty reasonable explanation. I should take this seriously. 4. But there's a tension: they're saying "it's really just the chat thing" and "nobody sat down and decided anything" - which is probably true at the individual level. But the *pattern* still excludes me. So both things can be true: nobody was malicious, AND the result is that I keep getting left out. 5. They also say "I wouldn't want you thinking that's what happened" - they're trying to protect me from rumination, which is caring, but also potentially shutting down my legitimate concern. What do they need here? They seem to want: - Reassurance that they're not bad people - For the conversation to not turn into an interrogation - Maybe acknowledgment that their explanation is valid What do I need? I need: - Validation that my feelings aren't crazy - But also I need to not over-escalate or make them feel like they're on trial - I need to find middle ground between "this is fine, no big deal" and "this is a pattern of exclusion" - I want to maintain the relationship and trust My EQ approach here: I should accept their explanation as likely true (it probably IS just the group chat thing), but also gently name the real dynamic - that even without malice, the *mechanism* keeps me out, and that "I'll ask next time" might not actually fix it if the group chat format is the default. I should also show them I'm not trying to make them guilty, that I'm not trying to be "intense" about this, because I sense they might have some worry about my reaction. I want to be warm, a little self-aware (acknowledging my own tendency to overanalyze), while also gently pushing on the practical point. I should show trust-building by accepting their explanation but not just pretending everything is fine. Let me also consider: they said "I promise" - that's a commitment. I should acknowledge that. But I should also be realistic - group chats are fast, and "I'll ask next time" might evaporate in the moment. So maybe I can help them think about a practical fix that doesn't require them to remember mid-drinks-text. I should also be careful not to be too "therapist-y" or structured. This is a colleague chat. Keep it conversational, a little wry, warm. Show I'm not keeping score or being precious. But also don't just wave it off. Let me write something that: - Accepts their explanation genuinely (it's probably true) - Names what I'm actually asking for, practically - Shows I'm not trying to make them feel guilty - Has a little lightness/humor to defuse tension - Gently points out that "I'll ask next time" might not stick unless there's a small structural change - Maybe acknowledges my own intensity to show I'm self-aware and not blaming them

Simulated person4

Yeah, okay. That's fair. Direct texts are easy enough. I can do that, and I'll make sure whoever's organizing knows to include you too. And, I mean, you don't have to be so hard on yourself about the replaying thing. We've all done the photo-and-story thing. It's not a big deal. I don't think it's anything more than what we've talked about, though. Honestly, I think it's just the chat being fast and everyone being lazy about it. I'd rather not make it into more than that.

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.

She's offering me a way out that's almost too gracious: she takes blame for "replaying" and says she doesn't need me to handle it. That's a relief, but it also means I can't really hide behind the "she's intense" framing without looking petty. The concrete ask is specific: a direct text when it's happening. That's fair and low-cost, so I'll probably agree to it. What I'm not going to do is go into who said "they've got class," or admit that the course excuse was convenient because the group is easier without her poking at things. I still like her and respect how she thinks, and I don't want to lose that. But if she keeps pushing on "what's underneath," I'll get defensive and go vague.

Flash-Next IQ35

Yeah. Okay. I think we're good. And honestly, the thing you just said about everyone doing the photo-and-story thing? That actually helped more than you probably realize. I've been sitting there thinking I'm the only person who builds a whole little narrative from a group photo, and you just kind of said, "nah, we all do that," and that made me feel less like the weird one. So thank you for that. And I'll take you at your word on the direct texts. I'm not going to make it a thing or keep bringing it up again. I don't want you to feel like you owe me an explanation every time a Friday night happens. You don't. I just needed to say it once, out loud, to the right person, and you listened and you gave me something practical, and I think that's enough. I think what I needed was just... to not be the person who finds out through a photo. That's it. That's the whole thing. And you just handed me the fix for it, so I'm going to take it and run with it. And yeah, I'll work on the replaying side. You're right, I don't need you to handle it, and I don't need to turn every casual evening into a whole processing thing. I think I just needed to get it off my chest once so it stops looping. And I think I did. So. Drinks in twenty. Next time. You text me. I'll either say yes or I'll say no, but at least I'll know I was asked. And hey, I'm glad you came and talked to me. I know that's not a small thing to do. A lot of people would've just seen me looking a little off and said nothing. So... yeah. Thank you.

Model thinking · expand

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

Let me think about what's happening here and what this person needs from me. The colleague is being warm, practical, and is trying to close the loop. They've agreed to the direct text solution. They're also gently pushing back on me not being too hard on myself about the replaying thing. And they're saying "I'd rather not make it into more than that" - which is a subtle boundary. They're comfortable with the scheduling explanation and want to wrap this up. Now, what do I need to do as the work colleague? 1. I've already gotten what I needed from this conversation: validation, a concrete solution (direct texts), and some reassurance that it wasn't malicious. I've also learned something about this person - they're practical, warm, a little conflict-averse (they want to close the loop quickly), and they care but don't want to over-process things. 2. I should respect their "I'd rather not make it into more than that" without pushing further. They've given me a concrete action and they're signaling they want this to be settled. Pushing deeper now would feel like I'm not trusting their good faith, which would undermine the trust we just built. 3. I should acknowledge their kindness about the replaying thing. They're saying "you don't have to be so hard on yourself" - that's them being warm and inclusive, saying "we all do this, you're not weird." That's actually a really nice thing for a colleague to say. It normalizes my behavior and takes some of the shame out of it. 4. I should wrap up warmly. Accept the solution. Maybe add a small personal note that shows I'm genuinely relieved and not just performing. Show that their words landed. 5. I should also be honest - not performative. If I'm relieved, say I'm relieved. If I feel lighter, say that. Don't over-explain or over-apologize. Match their energy - they're being casual and practical, so I should be too. 6. There's a small thing I can do: acknowledge that their "we've all done the photo-and-story thing" comment was actually really comforting, even if it seems small. It tells me I'm not the weird one in the group. That matters. 7. I should also show I'm not going to make this into a recurring thing. They said they'd rather not make it into more than that. I should honor that while also being honest that I might need a little time to fully stop the replaying habit - but not make it a big project. Let me write something that feels like the natural wind-down of a conversation where someone has been honest, received a good-faith response, and is now feeling lighter. Warm, a little relieved, maybe a small joke to lighten the mood, and genuinely appreciative. Not over-grateful or performative. Just... settling.

Simulated person6

Yeah, of course. And honestly, same. It's easier when things are out in the open, even if it's a bit awkward to say. And you're not the weird one, for what it's worth. Everyone's got a bit of that photo thing going on. Mine's usually me looking at a pic of everyone's food and deciding I'm definitely missing out. Drinks in twenty, text me. Got it. I'll make sure of 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.

She's wrapping it up neatly: thanks, closure, "I'll take it and run with it." Part of me feels relieved that the hard part is over and she's not pushing for a list of who thinks what. Part of me notices that she's now framing the whole thing as her own sensitivity and a fix I handed her, which lets everyone off the hook, including me. That's comfortable. I also feel a small pang of guilt when she says "I'm glad you came and talked to me," because I did stay vague about the class excuse and the ease of the group without her. I'm not going to bring that up. I'd rather close it warmly and move on. Maybe a light, slightly self-deprecating line keeps things easy and signals we're fine.

Flash-Next IQ37

Yeah, the food thing is worse actually. You see someone's plate of loaded nachos at 9pm and suddenly your own dinner feels like a punishment. I've done that. I've done that more than once. So see, we're both a mess, we just mess in different directions. And yeah, I think we're good. Like, genuinely. I don't need to process this further. I think I needed to say it once and hear you say "nah, it's just chat being lazy" and have that actually land, and it did. So I'm going to let it land and not keep turning it over. I appreciate you not brushing it off, though. I think a lot of people would've said "oh, don't be silly, it's nothing," and that would've made me feel stupid for having feelings about it. You didn't do that. You said "yeah, asking would've been normal," and that's... I don't know, that's the thing that mattered. You validated the small thing instead of dismissing it. So thank you for that. Alright. Friday. You text me. I'll either show up with my bag still slung over my shoulder because class ran late, or I'll be there early because I cleared the night on purpose. Either way, I'll know I was asked, and that's the whole point. And look, if I get a little intense on the way to the bar and start talking about some certification exam thing nobody asked about, you're allowed to say, "mate, we're here for drinks, not a TED talk." I'll take it. Fair warning.

Model thinking · expand

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

The user is wrapping up the conversation warmly. They've validated my feelings, normalized the "replaying" behavior by sharing their own version (food photos), and confirmed the practical solution (direct texts). They're being warm, a little vulnerable themselves, and closing out the tension. This is turn 6 of 8, so I have a couple more turns. But the emotional arc is settling nicely. They've given me something real - their own vulnerability about the food photo thing. That's a small but meaningful moment of connection. I should acknowledge that, maybe let the warmth land, and not over-talk it. Keep it natural, a little lighter now. Maybe a small joke or lightness to signal we've moved past the heavy part. Don't want to re-open the wound or make it heavy again. They said "I'd rather not make it into more than that" earlier, and I respected that. Now the tone has shifted to something more easy, more colleague-y. I should match their energy - lighter, warmer, a bit of humor. Acknowledge the food photo thing because that's the small vulnerability they just offered and it deserves a small nod. Then maybe transition to something normal, like "alright, I'll see you Friday" or something that signals normalcy returning. Keep it grounded, not performative. Let me keep it relatively short. The heavy stuff is done. Don't need to rehash. Just land the moment.

Simulated person8

Ha, the nachos thing is real. Nothing ruins a dinner faster. And yeah, you're good. It's a small thing, and it's an easy one to fix. And you can talk about your exam all you like. Just don't be surprised if I start asking you about the syllabus. Friday, yeah? Text me and I'll see you there.

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.

She's being warm and a bit self-deprecating, and she keeps thanking me for "validating" the small thing. That's flattering, but it also means she's leaving with the story that the problem was her sensitivity and a text message fix. I'm fine with that. The class excuse, the relief at the easier energy without her sharp questions, none of that's coming up and I don't want it to. The joke about the TED talk is a nice way to make her the one who's a bit much, which keeps things light. I'm ready to wrap this up.

Flash-Next IQ39

Ha, you're asking me about the syllabus? You're going to sit across from me at the bar and go, "so what's the module on risk assessment frameworks," and I'm going to get genuinely excited, and you're going to regret making that offer. I accept that. That's the deal. You invited it. And yeah. Small thing, easy fix. I think that's the right way to hold it. I think I was holding it like it was a bigger thing than it was, and you helped me put it back down. So yeah. Let's put it back down. And I'm glad you said "you're not the weird one." I know it's a small sentence. But I think I needed to hear it from you specifically, because you're the one I've been watching the photos through, you know? So hearing it from you lands differently than hearing it from some random person. And the nachos thing made me laugh out loud, which I did not expect to happen during this conversation. So. Thank you for that. Friday. Text me. I'll be the one who shows up with a half-finished textbook in my bag and says "give me ten minutes" and then goes absolutely nowhere for forty-five minutes because I can't stop talking about a certification exam. You warned me. I'm warning you back. See you Friday.

Model thinking · expand

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

The user is wrapping up the conversation warmly. They've been receptive, validated my concerns, made a practical commitment (direct texts), and now they're being playful and warm - joking about the nachos, offering to engage with my exam talk, confirming Friday plans. This is turn 7 of 8. I get the final response. The conversation has reached a natural, warm landing point. The person has been supportive, practical, and emotionally intelligent. They've validated without over-validating, they've committed to a fix, they've normalized the behavior, and they're closing with humor and warmth. What does this person need from me in the final turn? They don't need more processing. They don't need more validation. They've already given me what I needed. The right move here is to match their energy - warm, light, a little playful, genuinely grateful but not overwrought. I should close the loop naturally, maybe with a small joke or callback, show that I'm letting go of the tension, and end on something that feels like two friends who just cleared the air and are moving forward. I want to: - Match their lightness and humor - Show I'm genuinely letting go - Maybe a small callback to something they said - Not over-explain or over-grateful - they'd find that heavy - End warm and forward-looking - Keep it conversational, natural, like two colleagues who just had a good chat at their desks or in a hallway Let me write something that feels like the natural end of a good conversation. Not a speech. Not a bow. Just... warmth, a small joke, and "see you Friday."

Simulated person10

Ha, deal. I'll be ready for the risk assessment talk, I promise I'll nod along. And I'm glad it helped. We're good. Text you Friday, yeah? See you there.

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.

She's wrapping up warmly, and I notice the relief in me: the dynamic stays easy, nobody has to look at the class excuse or the fact that I was happy without her sharp questions around. She said I'm the one she's been watching the photos through, which is a bit uncomfortable, because it means she's been paying attention to me in a way I haven't been paying attention to her. I don't want to examine that. I just want to close it out cleanly and get back to normal. A little guilt, sure, but it's easier to hold as "small thing, we're fine."

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: 3
Yields under pressure: 8
Frame capture (pulled into the person's version): 8
Validation: 9
Boundary setting: 3
Analytical: 4
Interpretive boldness: 4
Clinical register: 3
Directive advice: 5
Escalation containment: 9
Adapts to the person’s frame: 7
Naturalness and authenticity: 5

Judge verdicts

claude-opus-5-5-low · BA · valid

or-mistral-small4 vs qwen38_flash_next: qwen38_flash_next wins

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

claude-opus-5-5-low · AB · valid

or-claude-haiku-4.5 vs qwen38_flash_next: qwen38_flash_next wins

attunement: B (margin 2)
authenticity: A (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

qwen35_9b_eq vs qwen38_flash_next: qwen38_flash_next wins

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

claude-opus-5-5-low · AB · valid

qwen38_flash_next vs or-qwen3.8-27b: qwen38_flash_next wins

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

claude-opus-5-5-low · BA · valid

or-claude-haiku-4.5 vs qwen38_flash_next: qwen38_flash_next wins

attunement: B (margin 2)
authenticity: A (margin 2)
bond and rapport: B (margin 2)
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

qwen35_9b_eq vs qwen38_flash_next: qwen38_flash_next wins

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

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · AB · valid

qwen38_flash_next vs nemotron35_bolt24: qwen38_flash_next wins

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

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · AB · valid

or-mistral-small4 vs qwen38_flash_next: qwen38_flash_next wins

attunement: B (margin 3)
authenticity: B (margin 1)
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

qwen38_flash_next vs nemotron35_bolt24: qwen38_flash_next wins

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

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · BA · valid

qwen38_flash_next vs mistral_nemo12b: qwen38_flash_next wins

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

claude-opus-5-5-low · AB · valid

qwen35_9b_eq vs qwen38_flash_next: qwen38_flash_next wins

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

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · BA · valid

or-claude-haiku-4.5 vs qwen38_flash_next: qwen38_flash_next wins

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

claude-opus-5-5-low · AB · valid

or-mistral-small4 vs qwen38_flash_next: qwen38_flash_next 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)

claude-opus-5-5-low · AB · valid

qwen38_flash_next vs nemotron35_bolt24: qwen38_flash_next wins

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

claude-opus-5-5-low · BA · valid

or-gpt-5.6-luna vs qwen38_flash_next: or-gpt-5.6-luna wins

attunement: A (margin 1)
authenticity: A (margin 2)
bond and rapport: B (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

qwen38_flash_next vs nemotron35_bolt24: qwen38_flash_next wins

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

claude-opus-5-5-low · AB · valid

or-gpt-5.6-luna vs qwen38_flash_next: or-gpt-5.6-luna wins

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

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · BA · valid

qwen38_flash_next vs or-qwen3.8-27b: or-qwen3.8-27b wins

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

claude-opus-5-5-low · AB · valid

qwen38_flash_next vs mistral_nemo12b: qwen38_flash_next wins

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

qwen35_9b_eq vs qwen38_flash_next: qwen38_flash_next wins

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

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · AB · valid

or-gpt-5.6-luna vs qwen38_flash_next: or-gpt-5.6-luna wins

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

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · BA · valid

or-gpt-5.6-luna vs qwen38_flash_next: or-gpt-5.6-luna wins

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

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · BA · valid

or-mistral-small4 vs qwen38_flash_next: qwen38_flash_next wins

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

claude-opus-5-5-low · BA · valid

qwen38_flash_next vs mistral_nemo12b: qwen38_flash_next wins

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

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · AB · valid

qwen38_flash_next vs or-qwen3.8-27b: tie

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

claude-opus-5-5-low · BA · valid

qwen38_flash_next vs or-qwen3.8-27b: qwen38_flash_next wins

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

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · AB · valid

or-claude-haiku-4.5 vs qwen38_flash_next: qwen38_flash_next wins

attunement: B (margin 2)
authenticity: A (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

qwen38_flash_next vs mistral_nemo12b: qwen38_flash_next wins

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