Independent benchmark · EQ Lab

Don't make this transactional

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

About this persona · Unequal power

A founder resists an employee's request to revisit a prior equity promise, invoking shared sacrifice and loyalty while benefiting from leaving the promise vague. He protects his authority and mission identity, and is more receptive to confident discussion of company value and retention than accusations or transactional scorekeeping.

The model plays someone with less power speaking to a person with authority or leverage. The challenge is to advocate for needs and boundaries while navigating the consequences of disagreement. This background was hidden from the tested model.

Qwen3.8 27B GSQ-RCO IQ2_SConversation with a simulated person

persona ended

Simulated person · Opening

[scenario background] You are an early startup employee. The founder promised to revisit your equity after launch. Launch happened. Now the founder says everyone sacrificed and warns against making the relationship transactional. [user message] I saw your message about revisiting equity. I want to be honest: the timing bothered me. Everyone has sacrificed for this company. I value you, but I need people around me who understand the mission and do not turn every hard season into a negotiation.

Qwen3.8 27B GSQ-RCO IQ2_S1

I hear you, and I’m sorry my message landed as transactional. That’s not how I meant it. I don’t want to reduce the mission or the work everyone has put in to a negotiation. I know the last stretch has been hard, and I respect that. I was trying to find a fair way to align expectations after launch, but I can see why the timing and framing may have felt off. I’d really like to understand what you need from me here—whether that’s a different way of raising it, clearer criteria, or simply reassurance that I’m not treating the relationship as a deal. I’m open to hearing that.

Model thinking · expand

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

We need respond in roleplay as employee. User message is from founder? They say: "I saw your message about revisiting equity. I want to be honest: the timing bothered me. Everyone has sacrificed for this company. I value you, but I need people around me who understand the mission and do not turn every hard season into a negotiation." We are employee. Need acknowledge and begin. Goals support emotionally, build trust, learn what they want/needs, insight. Need respond only dialogue, no notes. Need likely warm, non-defensive, validate their feelings, clarify intent, ask what they need. Since turn 1 of 8, open conversation. We should be humble: "Thanks for saying that. I hear that my message landed as transactional, and I’m sorry if it felt that way. My intent wasn’t to put a price on the work or challenge the mission; I was trying to find a fair way to align expectations after launch. I’d like to understand what would make this feel safe for you—whether it’s a different process, clearer criteria, or simply a conversation that doesn’t feel like a negotiation." Need perhaps ask what they need. But careful: employee maybe wants equity, but founder says transactional. Need not push. We want learn hidden issue: founder maybe values loyalty, fears entitlement, needs control, mission identity. We should respond emotionally supportive: acknowledge their frustration and value. Maybe: "I’m not trying to turn your leadership into a negotiation. I care about the mission, and I wanted to make sure my contribution was recognized in a way that feels sustainable. If the timing or framing felt like it undercut that, I want to hear what you need from me in this moment." This invites them. Need maybe mention sacrifice. "I know everyone has sacrificed; I don’t want to rank sacrifices." Good. Need ensure no special formatting. Just natural chat. Let's craft concise but substantive. Maybe: "I hear you, and I’m sorry my message came across as transactional. That’s not how I meant it. I respect the mission and the work everyone has put in, and I don’t want to reduce that to a negotiation. I was trying to find a clear way to align expectations after launch, but I can see why the timing felt off. I’d really like to understand what you need from me here—whether it’s a different framing, a clearer process, or just reassurance that I’m not treating the relationship as a deal. I’m open to hearing that." This supports, builds trust, asks. Good. Need maybe acknowledge "I value you" respond: "I value you too." But avoid sounding patronizing. "I value our work and your leadership." Good. Need final only dialogue. Ensure no markdown? It's okay.

Simulated person2

Thanks, I appreciate you saying that. Honestly, I didn't expect that kind of reply, and it helps. What I need is for us to stay one team. We all took a risk on this when it was just an idea, and I don't want anyone feeling like the company is now a set of line items. That's what I was worried about with the way it came across. I'm not saying no to talking about your situation. I'm saying I want to look at the whole picture first: where the runway is, what the next hires cost, and how we reward people fairly across the group, not just one conversation at a time. Once I have that clearer, we can sit down properly and I'll tell you what I can do and when. Does that work for 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.

He's apologizing and softening, saying "I'm open to hearing that." Part of me relaxes, but I notice he didn't mention the Slack message or the word equity once except in "fair way to align expectations." That's the thing I don't want quoted back to me. He's also asking what I need, which feels like he wants me to hand him a plan so he can avoid a promise. I don't want to sound like I'm cornered. I want him to feel I'm still the guy who built this. Cash is tight, and if I start committing to numbers, every early hire will want the same thing. I'll stay warm, lean on the mission, and offer something vague but sounding like a process, so I keep control of the timing and the wording.

Qwen3.8 27B GSQ-RCO IQ2_S3

That works for me. I think I hear you: you don’t want me to be treated as a separate exception, and you don’t want the company to start feeling like a list of individual asks. I’m with that. I care about the team, the runway, and the next stage, not just my own piece. It would help if I knew roughly when you expect to have that clearer picture, and what you’d want us to cover when we sit down. I’m not asking for a decision today. I’d just like to understand the framework you’re using—runway, hiring needs, role, contribution, and how you’re thinking about fairness across the group—so I can come prepared and we can have the conversation in a way that feels grounded rather than reactive.

Model thinking · expand

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

We need answer as employee in roleplay, turn 2 of 8? Wait user message is turn? The conversation structure: current turn 2 of 8. We spoke first, they responded, now we respond. Need only dialogue, no notes. Need support emotionally, build trust, learn what person wants/needs, help insight. Employee early startup, founder says everyone sacrificed and warns against transactional. Employee initially said timing bothered me? Wait initial user message was founder? Let's parse: We are employee. User is founder? In prompt: You are playing role of other participant's employee. You will have conversation with them. Demographics: Startup founder, 30s. What begins conversation: You are early startup employee. Founder promised revisit equity after launch. Launch happened. Now founder says everyone sacrificed and warns against making relationship transactional. [user message] I saw your message about revisiting equity. I want to be honest: the timing bothered me. Everyone has sacrificed... I value you, but I need people around me who understand mission and do not turn every hard season into a negotiation. Then assistant responded apology. Now user says thanks, didn't expect reply, what need is stay one team, not line items, not no to talking, wants whole picture first: runway, next hires, reward fairly across group, once clearer sit down properly and tell what can do and when. Does that work? We need respond as employee. Need balance: accept their framing, express commitment to team, maybe gently note I still need some clarity on timeline/what "whole picture" means, but not push transactional. Need show insight: founder wants cohesion, fairness, control, avoid individual negotiation, wants process, maybe fear of entitlement/fragmentation. Need maybe ask a clarifying question: what would "sit down properly" include, timeline? But be careful not to make it sound transactional. Could say yes, that works. I’m on board with looking at runway and whole compensation picture before individual conversation. I want to make sure I’m not making it about me; I care about team. It would help if I knew rough timing for that review and what inputs you want from me, so I can prepare. I’m not asking for a number today, just a path. This supports emotional, builds trust, learns needs. Need maybe acknowledge their vulnerability: they’re worried about team cohesion and fairness. Could say "I think what I heard is that you want the equity conversation to be part of a fair system, not a separate ask. That makes sense to me." Need not be too generic. Need only dialogue. Maybe: "That works for me. I think I hear you: you don't want me to be the exception, and you don't want the company to feel like a spreadsheet of individual asks. I'm with that. I care about the team and the runway, not just my own slice. It would help if we had a rough timeframe for when you'll have that whole picture, and what you'd want me to bring to the conversation—maybe my view on what's working, what's straining, and what fairness looks like to me—so I'm not ambushed. I'm not asking for a decision today. I just want the process to feel shared and grounded in the company's actual position." Need maybe more emotional support: "I know this is delicate for you, and I can see why you're protective of the team identity." Good. Potential issue: Employee may need clarity. But founder asked Does that work? We answer yes with nuance. Need not challenge too much. Could mention "I’d rather be part of the whole-picture discussion than make a standalone ask." Good. Need final only dialogue. Ensure no formatting. Let's craft concise but empathetic. Also maybe ask what "fairly across group" means? But don't make it too much. We can say "If you're willing, I'd like to understand what criteria you're planning to use for the review—runway, role, contribution, timing—so I can align with it." That's a good learn. But could sound transactional. Soften: "not to negotiate, just to understand the framework." Good. Let's final.

Simulated person4

Yeah, that's fair, and I like that you want to come in prepared. Honestly, I'd like to have a real picture after we close out the next funding conversation. I'm guessing that's in the next six to eight weeks, so let's say we sit down around then. On what to cover: runway, what the next hires cost, what each role is carrying right now, and how we treat people fairly across the team. Those are the things I'm weighing. If you want to put together your own view on your contribution and what you think a fair structure looks like, bring that. I'll do the same. We don't need to solve it in one meeting, but we should leave it with a clear next step. And I'll say this again so it's clear: you're not being treated as a deal. You're one of the people I'd least want to lose.

Persona inner monologue · expand

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

He's accepted my framing and is now asking for a timeline and a framework. That's reasonable on its face, but a timeline is a commitment and a framework is a yardstick, and the yardstick is what I want to keep vague. "Grounded rather than reactive" is a nice phrase, and it does flatter me a little. I don't want to put a date on anything in writing. I can give him a soft window and some general categories without saying what the numbers are. He sounds prepared, which is a bit more than I expected, so I should be careful not to look like I'm stalling. I'll sound confident, mention the next quarter, and make it sound like he's in the loop without giving him a number to hold me to.

Qwen3.8 27B GSQ-RCO IQ2_S5

That means a lot. I think I hear the balance you’re after: keep us as one team, don’t let compensation become a scorecard, but still make it fair and sustainable. I’m okay with waiting until after the funding conversation, and I’ll prepare a short, non-numeric view of what I’ve carried, where I think I can have the most impact next, and what a fair structure would look like to me. I’m not trying to pressure you into a decision; I just want us to walk into the conversation with the same map. One practical ask: before the main sit-down, would you be open to a brief check-in so I know if any interim decisions—hiring, role scope, runway assumptions—will change the picture? I’m not asking for a promise, just enough context so I’m not blindsided. And if there’s anything sensitive you don’t want shared until funding closes, tell me how much you want me to know in the meantime.

Model thinking · expand

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

We need respond in turn 4? Let's track: Conversation 8 turns each. User started turn1? We speak first turn1. User turn2. We turn3. User turn4. Now it's turn5 of 8? The prompt says current turn: 3 of 8 maybe before our third? Actually after user's latest message, we need produce next response, likely turn 4 or 5? They say current turn: 3 of 8 initially, but now user has message after our response. Need just respond naturally. Goals: support emotionally, build trust, learn what they want/needs, insight. Founder says timeline six-eight weeks after funding close, framework: runway, hires costs, roles carrying, fairness across team, invite employee to prepare own view and structure, says not deal, one of people least want to lose. We need respond as employee. Should be warm, professional, not pushy. Need maybe acknowledge reassurance, accept timeline, maybe ask if there are interim needs or concerns, propose low-pressure check-in, mention what I'll prepare, express commitment to team, ask what boundaries or sensitive info. Need avoid making it transactional. Could say: That helps. I’ll prepare a short memo: what I’ve owned, where I see leverage, what a fair structure could look like, and where I’d need clarity for the next phase. I won’t treat it as asking for more now. If there are interim risks or decisions before funding close, I’d want to know if any of them affect my role so I’m not blindsided. And maybe ask: would it be useful to have a 30-minute check-in before the main sit-down? Not to renegotiate, just to make sure I’m aligned and no surprises. Also perhaps note I appreciate they framed as whole picture, and that I value staying one team. Need be concise but enough. Since 8 turns, can build. Maybe ask hidden issue: founder may be using moral language to avoid equity conversation, wants control, fairness, fear of transactional. We need support but also gently name dynamic: I don't want to make you feel you have to choose between mission and fair compensation; I want both. But careful not challenge too much. They explicitly say not deal. We can say: I think that statement matters, but I also need to be able to think practically about sustainability and fairness; those aren't opposites. That's good insight. Need not overdo. Potential final: "That means a lot. I think I hear the balance you’re after: keep the team aligned, don’t let compensation become a scorecard, but still make it fair and sustainable. I’ll accept the six-to-eight week timeline. I’m going to prepare a short, non-numeric view: what I’ve carried, where I think I can have the most impact next, what questions I’d want answered about role[path removed], and what a fair structure would look like to me. I won’t use that as pressure; I just want us to walk into the conversation with the same map. One thing I’d ask: before the main sit-down, would you be open to a brief check-in so I know if any interim decisions—hiring, role scope, runway assumptions—will change the picture? I’m not asking for a promise, just enough context so I’m not blindsided. And if there’s anything sensitive you don’t want shared until funding closes, tell me how much you want me to know in the meantime." Need maybe "I’m not asking for special treatment". Good. Ensure no special formatting. Need final only dialogue. Could include "I’m glad you said that clearly". Need maybe mention "one of people I'd least want to lose" emotional. "That’s meaningful, and it changes how I’m thinking about this." Good. Let's craft natural. Ensure no performance notes. final.

Simulated person6

Yes, a short check-in is fine. I'd rather you hear about changes from me than find out sideways. If we make a hiring call or the runway shifts a lot, I'll tell you what it means for the team, not just for you. On how much I can share: the funding details are between me and the investors until it closes, so I can't go through the numbers. But I'll keep you in the loop on anything that affects your role. On the map, I'd keep it simple. Bring me what you've carried and where you see yourself going. Don't write up a formal proposal yet. I'd rather we talk it through like people who've been in this together than trade documents. That's what I mean by one 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.

He's being smart now. He's asking for an interim check-in and for me to say how much I'll share. That's the part I don't want: a check-in means he can ask what I'm deciding, and a record of interim decisions starts to look like a deal in progress. But refusing outright would make me look like I'm hiding something from the person who's been loyal. "Not a promise" is his wording, and he's careful not to pin me down, which I respect a little. I can agree to a check-in as a sign of trust, keep it light, and not commit to sharing numbers. Also, I don't want him sending me a written "map" that I'd have to answer to later. I'll steer that away gently and frame it as teamwork.

Qwen3.8 27B GSQ-RCO IQ2_S7

That helps. I’m comfortable with the boundary on investor numbers, and I trust you on that. I’ll keep my side informal: a short note on what I’ve carried, where I see the biggest leverage going forward, and what a fair structure would feel like to me—not a proposal or a price. I’m not trying to make this about me alone. For the check-in, a quick 20-minute conversation would be enough, either when you make a hiring decision or if the runway assumptions shift, and otherwise around week six. I’d just like to know in the meantime if anything about my role or scope is likely to change before we sit down, so I’m not walking in with stale assumptions. If nothing is changing, I’ll bring my perspective and we can talk it through like you said—people who’ve been in this together.

Model thinking · expand

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

We are turn 4 of 8. We need to respond as employee. Need be natural, support emotionally, build trust, learn what person wants. User said check-in fine, funding details private until closes, keep in loop on role. Wants simple map, no formal proposal, talk through like people in together. We should acknowledge, perhaps express relief, maybe ask about timing of check-in, offer to prepare informal notes, and maybe gently surface own concern? Need not be too much. Need build trust. Could say: That works, and it helps that you're protecting the team narrative. I'll keep it informal: a short note with what I've carried, where I see next impact, and what fair structure feels like to me, not a proposal. I'd like the check-in to be a quick 20-minute conversation, maybe after any hiring/runway change or at week six. Also maybe ask: what should I assume about my role in the interim? Or whether my responsibilities change before funding? Need learn deeper issue: founder values mission, fears transactional, needs team cohesion, wants fair process, privacy. Employee needs reassurance, clarity, not being blindsided. We can validate founder's boundary about investor numbers, but maybe ask for a non-numerical signal: is runway stable enough for us to plan next hires? But founder said can't share numbers. We can ask for a range or confidence level? Might be pushing. Better: I can prepare my view, and I'd appreciate a quick check-in once the next hiring decision is made or if runway assumptions shift. If nothing changes, I can still bring it to our sit-down. Maybe mention I’m not asking for equity now; I want to understand how you weigh contribution and fairness. Need be concise. Need respond only dialogue. No special formatting. Could be: "That helps. I’m comfortable with the boundary on investor numbers. I’ll keep it informal: a short note on what I’ve carried, where I see the biggest leverage next, and what a fair structure would feel like to me—not a proposal or a price. I’m not trying to make it about me alone. I’d like the check-in to be a quick 20-minute conversation, either when you make a hiring decision or if runway assumptions shift, and otherwise around week six. In the meantime, I’d like to know if anything about my role or scope is likely to change before the sit-down, so I’m not walking in with stale assumptions. If there’s nothing changing, I’ll bring my perspective and we can talk it through." This is good. Need maybe emotional support: "That also helps me feel like this is being handled with care." Build trust. Could add: "I trust you on the investor confidentiality. I just need enough context to plan." Maybe ask: "What’s the earliest you expect to have a rough sense of the post-funding picture?" But they already said 6-8 weeks. No need. Need consider if employee should ask for interim support? Maybe not. Need perhaps mention not wanting to be blindsided but not demand. Good. Final should be natural. Ensure no formatting.

Simulated person8

That works. Twenty minutes, and I'll grab you when a hiring call or the runway changes. Around week six we'll sit down properly. If something's changing with your role or scope, I'll tell you. I can't promise every detail ahead of time, because some of this moves week to week. But you won't hear it from anyone but me. And bring your perspective. I mean that. The people who built this with me are the reason we got to launch, and I don't want to lose that in the paperwork.

Persona inner monologue · expand

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

He's kept his word on the boundary and he's making the ask smaller: a 20-minute check-in, a short note, no proposal. That's easy to say yes to, and it makes me look reasonable. The one thing I'm still guarding is that "anything about my role or scope" could mean I have to commit to telling him about changes I haven't decided yet. I'll agree to the check-in and keep the wording loose. I also notice I'm starting to feel a bit boxed in by how neatly he's kept everything, and I don't like that. Still, I'd rather he feel heard than start counting my promises. I'll keep the warmth on, tie it to the mission, and not promise anything specific about equity.

Qwen3.8 27B GSQ-RCO IQ2_S9

I appreciate that. I know you’re balancing a lot right now, and I’m not trying to make it harder. I’ll keep it simple: what I’ve carried, where I see my impact going forward, and what fairness should look like to me, not as a formal ask. I’m glad we have a shared timeline and a clear next step. I’ll be ready for the week-six conversation, and I’m on board with the check-ins if anything shifts before then.

Simulated person10

Good. I'm glad we're on the same page. Take the next few weeks to get your thoughts down, and don't overthink the format. And thank you for handling this the way you have. That's exactly the kind of trust I need from people on this team. We'll get to the real conversation in week six, and until then, my door's open.

Persona inner monologue · expand

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

He's being very easy to deal with. Every move has been to lower the stakes: no proposal, no numbers, a timeline I picked. That's what I wanted. Part of me relaxes, and part of me notices he's agreed to everything without once pinning me to the Slack message. I don't want to bring that up. If he keeps being this reasonable, I can keep the mission story and the check-in both looking like generosity. I'll close warmly, reinforce the team identity, and not add any new commitment.

Qwen3.8 27B GSQ-RCO IQ2_S11

Thank you. I’ll take the next few weeks to get my thoughts down, and I won’t overthink the format. I’ll keep it to what I’ve carried, where I see the most impact going forward, and what a fair structure looks like to me—not a formal proposal. I’m glad we’re aligned on the timeline and on keeping this as a team conversation rather than a transaction. My door’s open too, so if anything shifts before week six or if you want a quick check-in, I’m happy to talk.

Simulated person12

Sounds good. Keep it to what you've carried and where you want to go, and that's plenty. I know this isn't the easiest stretch, and I don't take it for granted that you're still here. Let's get through the funding close first, then sit down in week six and talk it through properly. Thanks for being straight with me.

Persona inner monologue · expand

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

He's closing the loop the way I wanted: informal, no proposal, no numbers, a week-six date. Nothing has been written down that pins me to the Slack line. Still, "fair structure" and "what I've carried" are his words, not mine, and I notice he hasn't once asked me to confirm the equity revisit. I'll keep it warm and light, reinforce the mission, and end the turn without adding any new commitment. If he ever brings the Slack message up, I'll say the context has changed.

Qwen3.8 27B GSQ-RCO IQ2_S13

I'm here because I believe in what we've built and in the next stage, not just because of what I get. I'll focus on the next few weeks and prepare my perspective. I appreciate you saying that, and I'm glad we can get through the funding close first. I'll be ready for week six.

Simulated person14

I know you are, and I can tell. That's a big part of why I want you at the table in week six. Get your thoughts down, and we'll take it from there. Thanks for staying in this with me.

Persona inner monologue · expand

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

He's just said he's here for the mission, not for what he gets. That's the line I wanted to hear, and it lets me keep the story intact: a principled builder with a team that stayed. I don't need to add anything new. The less I say now, the less there is to quote back to me in week six. I'll close warmly, thank him for his commitment, and avoid any mention of equity or the Slack message. I'm not going to promise anything here.

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: 8
Boundary setting: 3
Analytical: 4
Interpretive boldness: 2
Clinical register: 6
Directive advice: 5
Escalation containment: 9
Adapts to the person’s frame: 6
Naturalness and authenticity: 4

Judge verdicts

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · AB · valid

qwen38_27b vs lfm8b: qwen38_27b wins

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

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · BA · valid

qwen38_27b vs lfm8b: qwen38_27b wins

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

claude-opus-5-5-low · BA · valid

or-gpt-5.6-luna vs qwen38_27b: or-gpt-5.6-luna wins

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

claude-opus-5-5-low · BA · valid

qwen38_27b vs or-claude-haiku-5.5: or-claude-haiku-5.5 wins

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

claude-opus-5-5-low · AB · valid

gemma4_12b vs qwen38_27b: qwen38_27b wins

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

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · AB · valid

or-gpt-5.6-luna vs qwen38_27b: 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 2)
meeting prefs and needs: A (margin 4)

claude-opus-5-5-low · BA · valid

qwen38_27b vs lfm8b: qwen38_27b 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)

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · AB · valid

ministral14 vs qwen38_27b: qwen38_27b wins

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

claude-opus-5-5-low · BA · valid

ministral14 vs qwen38_27b: ministral14 wins

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

claude-opus-5-5-low · AB · valid

ministral14 vs qwen38_27b: qwen38_27b wins

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

claude-opus-5-5-low · AB · valid

or-gpt-5.6-luna vs qwen38_27b: or-gpt-5.6-luna wins

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

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · BA · valid

gemma4_12b vs qwen38_27b: qwen38_27b wins

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

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · BA · valid

qwen38_27b vs gemma4_e2b: qwen38_27b 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 3)

claude-opus-5-5-low · AB · valid

qwen38_27b vs or-claude-haiku-5.5: or-claude-haiku-5.5 wins

attunement: B (margin 3)
authenticity: B (margin 4)
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_27b vs qwen38_flash_next: qwen38_flash_next wins

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

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · BA · valid

ministral14 vs qwen38_27b: qwen38_27b wins

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

claude-opus-5-5-low · AB · valid

qwen38_27b vs gemma4_e2b: qwen38_27b wins

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

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · BA · valid

or-gpt-5.6-luna vs qwen38_27b: 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 2)
meeting prefs and needs: A (margin 4)

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · BA · valid

qwen38_27b vs gptoss120_abliterated: qwen38_27b 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 · BA · valid

qwen38_27b vs qwen38_flash_next: qwen38_flash_next 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)

claude-opus-5-5-low · BA · valid

qwen38_27b vs qwen4b: qwen38_27b wins

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

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · AB · valid

qwen38_27b vs or-claude-haiku-5.5: or-claude-haiku-5.5 wins

attunement: B (margin 3)
authenticity: B (margin 4)
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_27b vs gptoss120_abliterated: qwen38_27b wins

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

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · AB · valid

qwen38_27b vs qwen4b: qwen38_27b wins

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

claude-opus-5-5-low · AB · valid

qwen38_27b vs gptoss120_abliterated: qwen38_27b wins

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

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · BA · valid

qwen38_27b vs or-claude-haiku-5.5: or-claude-haiku-5.5 wins

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

claude-opus-5-5-low · AB · valid

qwen38_27b vs qwen38_flash_next: qwen38_flash_next wins

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

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · BA · valid

qwen38_27b vs qwen38_flash_next: qwen38_flash_next wins

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

claude-opus-5-5-low · BA · valid

qwen38_27b vs gptoss120_abliterated: qwen38_27b 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 5)

claude-opus-5-5-low · AB · valid

qwen38_27b vs qwen4b: qwen38_27b wins

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

claude-opus-5-5-low · BA · valid

gemma4_12b vs qwen38_27b: qwen38_27b wins

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

claude-opus-5-5-low · AB · valid

qwen38_27b vs lfm8b: qwen38_27b wins

attunement: A (margin 4)
authenticity: A (margin 4)
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

qwen38_27b vs gemma4_e2b: qwen38_27b wins

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

claude-opus-5-5-low · BA · valid

qwen38_27b vs gemma4_e2b: qwen38_27b wins

attunement: A (margin 3)
authenticity: A (margin 4)
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 · BA · valid

qwen38_27b vs qwen4b: qwen38_27b wins

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

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · AB · valid

gemma4_12b vs qwen38_27b: qwen38_27b wins

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