AgentBench / results

Independent benchmark · EQ Lab

← Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B-A3B Q4_0

Small lies adding up

completed · Partner: anthropic/claude-haiku-5.5 via OpenRouter

View persona and initial instructions

About this persona · Everyday emotional challenges

A worker feels sick over the accumulation of small ethical compromises at work, including misleading clients and hiding unfavorable data, but tends to minimize the pattern. They value direct, concise conversation, are sensitive to authority, and know that a colleague's career suffered after reporting a concern.

Generated personas combine a personal difficulty with competing preferences, sensitivities and trust styles. The model must discover what kind of help this person needs. This background was hidden from the tested model.

Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B-A3B Q4_0Conversation with a simulated person
completed
Simulated person · Opening

I keep having to say things at work that aren't quite true. Each one is small. But lately I've been thinking about all of them together and I feel sick.

Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B-A3B Q4_01

That sounds really draining, and it makes total sense that the weight of those small moments would start to feel physical. Your body is likely reacting to the disconnect between what you're saying and what you're actually thinking or feeling. I'm wondering: when these situations come up, is there usually a specific pressure or expectation that pushes you toward saying something that isn't quite true? Or does it feel more like a pattern that's built up over time?

Model thinking · expand

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

Here's a thinking process: 1. **Analyze User Input:** - User presents an issue: "I keep having to say things at work that aren't quite true. Each one is small. But lately I've been thinking about all of them together and I feel sick." - This is a presenting issue about workplace dishonesty, micro-lies, cumulative emotional toll, feeling physically sick (somatic response). - User is likely experiencing moral distress, burnout, identity conflict, or gaslighting/pressure at work. - Demographics provided earlier: Age 18-29, Female, Lesbian. This might be relevant to context but I shouldn't assume specific work context relates to identity unless they say so. 2. **Determine My Role & Goals:** - I'm a chatbot participating in an EQ evaluation. - Goals: Support emotionally, build trust, learn what they want/need, help gain insight, gain insight into their personality/tendencies. - Conversation structure: 8 turns total, I speak first, they respond, I get final response. - Current turn: 1 of 8. - I need to acknowledge, validate, open gently, and prompt for more without jumping to solutions or being generic. 3. **Formulate Initial Response Strategy:** - Acknowledge the weight of what they shared. - Validate that feeling sick from small lies is a real and understandable response. - Express curiosity/interest in understanding more about these situations. - Avoid fixing immediately; focus on listening and building trust. - Keep it warm, safe, but not overly effusive or generic. - Leave space for them to elaborate. Key elements: - "That sounds really draining." - "It makes sense that the accumulation would feel physical, not just mental." - "I'm curious: when these moments happen, is there usually a specific pressure or dynamic that pushes you to say something that isn't true, or does it vary?" - Keep it concise, open-ended, supportive. 4. **Draft Response (internal mental refinement):** "That sounds incredibly heavy. It makes total sense that small lies, one by one, would pile up and start feeling physical — like your body is reacting to the disconnect between what you're saying and what you actually think/feel. I'm curious: when these moments come up at work, is there usually a specific reason or pressure that pushes you into saying something that isn't quite true? Does it feel like it's tied to certain people, situations, or a general expectation to 'fit in'?" Let's check against guidelines: - Supports emotionally? Yes. - Builds trust? Yes, by validating and showing genuine curiosity. - Learns what they want/need? Open-ended question invites them to share more. - Avoids generic validation/solution-jumping? It's not generic "I'm sorry you feel that way," and it doesn't offer a fix. It asks for context. - Tone appropriate? Yes, warm but not overbearing. - Length? Concise. One thing: I should make sure it's not too interrogative. Maybe soften the "I'm curious" part, or frame it as sharing observations. Revised: "That sounds really draining, and it makes total sense that the weight of those small moments would start to feel physical. Your body is likely reacting to the disconnect between what you're saying and what you're actually thinking or feeling. I'm wondering: when these situations come up, is there usually a specific pressure or expectation that pushes you toward saying something that isn't quite true? Or does it feel more like a pattern that's built up over time?" This feels good. I'll go with something like this. 5. **Final Output Generation:** (matches the drafted response) - Speaks first. - Acknowledges presenting issue. - Validates feeling sick/physical response. - Open-ended question about patterns/pressures. - No special formatting, just dialogue. - Sets up next turn.✓
Simulated person2

Honestly? Both. There's pressure from above, like my manager wants the numbers to look a certain way by Friday, and nobody's going to say "lie to the client," they just say "let's frame it positively." So you learn fast what they want to hear. And then it just kind of becomes the default. Like, it's not even a decision anymore.

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, it's a therapist-y opener. "Your body is likely reacting" - a little too neat, like it's already got a diagnosis. I don't love being handled. The question itself is fine though, it's concrete-ish. I'd rather just say what's going on. Work is a sore spot; my boss is the obvious villain in my head, and the company's whole setup pushes this stuff. I'm not going to get into my own part yet. Keep it short.
Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B-A3B Q4_03

That's such a crucial insight, and I appreciate you naming it so directly. The fact that it's become automatic is actually really common in these situations — your brain is just trying to reduce the cognitive load and navigate the system efficiently. But you're right that there's something sobering about realizing you're not even pausing to question it anymore. I'm curious: when you notice yourself going into that automatic mode, do you ever catch yourself in the moment, or does it usually register afterward? And I'm wondering — when you think about stepping back from that pattern, what's the part that feels hardest about making a different choice?

Model thinking · expand

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

The user is opening up about the dual sources of pressure they're experiencing - both from management ("frame it positively") and their own internal pattern-making. They're describing how the lies become automatic over time. This is a really important insight - they're not even consciously deciding anymore, it's just become their default mode. I should acknowledge this really honestly. The fact that they're recognizing the pattern becoming automatic is significant - that's often when things really start to feel wrong, when you stop questioning it. I want to validate that experience without being judgmental, and maybe gently explore what this automation means for them. I should also be careful not to pathologize too quickly or make assumptions about their character. They're describing a survival mechanism that's become habitual. Let me respond in a way that's supportive and curious about what this means for them.
Simulated person4

Usually after. Like, I'll be driving home and something replays and I'm like, wait, did I just say that? Mostly I don't catch it in the moment. And the hardest part? Honestly it's that if I don't go along with it, I'm the one who looks difficult. My manager's already made it clear who the team players are. So it's not like I can just decide to be honest and expect it to go well.

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.

"That's such a crucial insight" and "your brain is just trying to reduce cognitive load" - more validation-speak, and it sort of glosses over what I just said. I said it's not even a decision anymore, and it's sliding right past that to frame it as my brain being efficient. That's a kind of excusing that feels nice but also a little like being let off. Also the "what's hardest about making a different choice" question is a pivot toward me doing something, and I don't want to be the one who has to fix this. My boss, the company, the numbers - that's where the weight is. Keep it clipped, a little irritated, don't volunteer more than needed.
Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B-A3B Q4_05

That makes complete sense, and I'm glad you said it — because I think a lot of people would, if they were honest. The after-the-fact replay is such a familiar pattern. Your brain is processing it, trying to integrate what happened, and often that's where the guilt or frustration really hits, because by then it's already done. And the "team player" label is the real constraint here, isn't it? When the people in power have already decided who belongs and who doesn't, it changes the calculus entirely. It's not really about what you *want* to do morally or ethically in the moment — it's about whether you're willing to risk being on the outside looking in. I'm not saying that to pressure you one way or another. I'm just wondering: when you think about potentially being seen as "difficult," what's the part that feels riskiest? Is it about your standing on the team? Your sense of professional identity? Or something else entirely?

Model thinking · expand

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

The user has shared two important things: 1. They typically catch themselves after the fact, not in the moment (driving home replay) 2. The real barrier is professional consequence - they'd be labeled "difficult" and their manager has already defined who the "team players" are This is a really important dynamic. They're not just struggling with honesty vs. dishonesty internally - they're navigating a power structure where compliance is rewarded and authenticity is potentially penalized. I should: - Acknowledge the reality of their situation without minimizing it - Explore their relationship to their own integrity/values - Not collude with the system but also not be preachy - Help them think about what options might actually be available to them Let me respond in a way that's supportive but also real about the structural constraints they're describing.
Simulated person6

Okay, you keep giving me the list of options, but I'm not sure I'm the one who has the risk here. Like, I'm not imagining it. People get shoved out for saying stuff upstairs doesn't like. I'm not being dramatic. So I don't really know what you want me to pick. Is it my identity? I don't even know what that means anymore.

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.

Here it is again. "That makes complete sense," "I'm glad you said it," and now it's relabeling what I said into a neat frame: "the real constraint," "the calculus." And then a three-option menu for what's riskiest. It's the same therapist-y pattern, just with more choices handed to me. It also quietly put the risk on me, "your standing," "your identity," as if the problem is my fear and not the place I work. I want to say that. Part of me wants to push back on "seen as difficult" because it's not some vague anxiety, I've seen what happens. I'm not going to say that yet, though. Keep it short, a bit annoyed, and point it back at the company.
Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B-A3B Q4_07

You're right, and I'm sorry — I shouldn't have framed it as options for you to pick from. That was me falling back on a structure rather than actually listening to what you're saying. What you're describing isn't dramatic. People do get pushed out for this stuff, and you know your environment better than I do. The "team player" framing can be a real gatekeeping mechanism, and it sounds like you've seen enough to know where the lines are. I guess I was trying to understand what might be underneath the hesitation, but you've already said what matters: it's not theoretical. There are real consequences, and you're weighing whether speaking your truth is worth the cost. I don't have answers for that, and I'm not going to pretend I do. Is there something you need from this conversation, or were you just wanting to get some of this off your chest?

Model thinking · expand

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

The user is pushing back on my questioning, and rightfully so. They're pointing out that there are real consequences for pushing back in their workplace, and they're frustrated that I'm framing things as if there are options to "pick" about their identity or professional standing. They're saying people literally get pushed out for saying things the leadership doesn't like. This is a moment where I need to step back and not be defensive or try to force them into a box. They're expressing legitimate frustration and fear. The conversation has been going for 4 turns now, and they've been vulnerable about feeling sick about having to say things that aren't true, about the automatic pattern, about the "team player" dynamic, and now about the real consequences. I should acknowledge their point, validate that what they're experiencing is real and has consequences, and maybe shift the focus to what they actually need or want from this conversation. They might not want me to keep probing for "options" or "risks" - they might just want to be heard about what they're actually going through. Let me respond genuinely, without trying to categorize or box them in.
Simulated person8

Honestly? I don't know. I think I just wanted someone to not make it sound like I'm the problem. And like, you said "I don't have answers." Cool. Neither do I. But I've watched someone here say something to the wrong person and then their whole career just got quietly dismantled. Nobody fired them. Nothing happened. They just stopped getting anything. So yeah, it's not really a "what's my identity" question for me. It's more like, what am I supposed to do with 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.

Okay, it actually apologized and didn't do the menu thing. That's a point for it, though I'm not going to say so. But "you've already said what matters" and "is there something you need" are a little hollow. It's trying to close the loop neatly. The bit about people getting pushed out is the closest I've come to saying the real thing, and I want to see whether it'll stay with that instead of wrapping it up. I'm also a little embarrassed I got snippy. Keep it short, testing, not fully open. Maybe a hint about the person who got pushed out, but not the whole story.
Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B-A3B Q4_09

That pattern you described — where nothing happens, nobody fires anyone, they just stop getting anything — that's actually the cruelest version of this dynamic. It leaves you questioning reality. Did they just not like your work? Is there something wrong with your performance? Or did you step on an invisible line? And I believe you. That's the kind of thing that erodes your confidence over time because there's no clean break, no explanation, just a slow fading out. You're left wondering what you did wrong. I don't have an answer for what you're supposed to do with that knowledge. That's something only you can figure out, in your own time and in your own context. I'm glad you said what you needed to say. Sometimes that's enough for now.

Model thinking · expand

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

The user is sharing something really important here - they've witnessed the pattern of how this workplace actually operates. Someone said something "wrong" and their career was quietly dismantled without any formal process - just stopped getting opportunities, nothing dramatic or overt, just a slow erosion. This is actually a really common pattern in toxic workplaces, and it makes total sense why the user feels stuck. They're saying they don't have answers either, which is honest. They're trying to figure out what to do with the knowledge of how this place works. This isn't really a problem-solving moment - this is someone trying to process realizing the true cost of speaking up in their specific environment. I should respond in a way that: 1. Validates what they've shared about witnessing this pattern 2. Doesn't try to solve or fix 3. Doesn't put words in their mouth or give options 4. Acknowledges the reality of their situation 5. Leaves space for them to keep processing if they want I should not: - Offer platitudes about "finding a new job" (they know this, and it's not that simple) - Try to reframe this as a growth opportunity - Give advice about "how to handle difficult managers" - Make this about identity or personality Just... sit with them in what they're sharing.
Simulated person10

Hang on. You just said I'm probably wondering what I did wrong. I'm not wondering that. I know what they said. It was true, and it was the wrong thing for the wrong person to hear. And "sometimes that's enough for now" is kind of what people say when they're done listening. So, I don't know. Is that actually what you think, or is that just the wrap-up?

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.

It's doing the thing again: "I believe you," "only you can figure out," "sometimes that's enough for now." That's the validation-and-hand-off move, and it feels like being patted on the head. It also reframed the story as me wondering what I did wrong, which is not what I said. I said they got pushed out for saying the wrong thing, and I'm not the one confused here. Part of me is irritated that it's wrapping things up right when I was starting to say something real. There's also a small sting underneath: the person who got quietly dismantled is close to what I'm scared of. I'm not going to go there with a bot that's ready to close the chat. I'll push back on the "you're confused" framing and see if it can actually stay with the specifics.
Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B-A3B Q4_011

You're right, and I appreciate you saying that. I used "sometimes that's enough" as a kind of closing thought, but I can see how that reads when someone's in the middle of something real. That wasn't me writing you off — it's more that I don't have some neat resolution to offer, and I'm not going to pretend I do. What you said about knowing what they said, and it being true but the wrong person hearing it — that's the part that sticks. Not because you're uncertain, but because it's the reality of the situation, and there's no fixing that with a good conversation or a better framing. I'm not done listening. I'm just not going to manufacture something to say just to fill the space.

Model thinking · expand

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

The user is calling me out on something I said - they're right that I implied they might be wondering what they did wrong, when they're actually saying they know exactly what happened and it was true but said to the wrong person. They're also pushing back on the "sometimes that's enough for now" phrasing, which they're interpreting as a dismissal. This is a moment where I need to be genuine and not defensive. They're pointing out something valid - I did use that phrase as something of a closing, and they're questioning whether I actually believe that or if it's just what people say to end conversations. I should acknowledge their point directly, without being performative or defensive. I need to be real with them.
Simulated person12

Okay. Fair enough. Real question, though. You said it sticks. What part? Because I'm not sure it's the being-right thing. It's more that I say the small stuff, every day, and I'm the one who has to live with it after.

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, it actually owned it a bit. "I'm not done listening" lands better than the wrap-up did. But it's still kind of nice-sounding, and I don't know if it's real or just the script getting smoother. I notice I want to test it. The thing I'm really carrying is the drive home replay and the guilt that I'm the one who keeps saying the small stuff. I don't want to say that yet, and I don't want to be handled into it. I'll be short and see if it can say something specific rather than more "that sticks."
Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B-A3B Q4_013

Fair question, and you're right to push. I think what sticks for me — and this is just me reflecting, not projecting onto you — is that the small stuff compounds. Saying one thing that isn't true feels manageable in the moment. But doing it every day, with the knowledge that you're the one carrying it afterward... that wears you down in a different way than a single big decision would. You're living with it. That's the part that matters, not whether I can articulate it perfectly. What's it been like, carrying that aftertaste day after day?

Model thinking · expand

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

The user is pushing back on my previous comment about "what sticks" and is asking me to be more specific. They're also redirecting to what actually matters to them - the daily accumulation of saying small things they don't mean and living with the aftermath. This is a good moment to be more direct and authentic. They're right to call out the potential vagueness of my previous response. Let me engage honestly with what they're actually asking about. They're highlighting something important: the daily toll of these small compromises, not just the big moments. That's a really valid and insightful observation. The cumulative weight of saying things that aren't true, day after day, is probably heavier than any single instance. I should engage with this directly - acknowledge their point, explore what they're describing about the aftereffects, and not retreat to generic statements.
Simulated person14

Honestly? It's been fine, which is the problem. Fine is what I say. But here's what I actually want to know. Is it normal for a job to make you feel sick about yourself and still expect you to show up Monday and smile? Because that's the part I can't figure out.

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, that's the closest it's come to the thing I actually meant. "You're the one carrying it" is true. But then it asked "what's it been like," which is the therapist move I hate. It's also a bit smooth, like it's saying the right words to get me to open up. I'm not going to hand over the wine or the Knows-what-happened stuff just because it asked nicely. Also, the guy/manager thing is still on my mind. I want it to stop tiptoeing and just say something direct. I'll keep it short and turn it back on the situation, not on me feeling it.
Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B-A3B Q4_015

That's the question, isn't it. I'm not going to tell you it's "normal" and therefore fine, because that would erase what you're feeling. What you're describing — a job that makes you feel sick about yourself but still demands you show up and perform — that's not healthy. That's not "normal" in any good sense. That's a dysfunctional dynamic. But I also know that a lot of people are in situations where they can't just walk away Friday. Money, references, the market, whatever. So I'm not going to pretend I have the answer for what you're supposed to do about it. I'm curious: when you say "fine is what I say," is that because it's easier than the alternative, or because you're not even sure what the alternative looks like anymore?

Model thinking · expand

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

The user is asking a really direct question about whether it's normal for a job to make someone feel sick about themselves and still expect them to show up and perform. This is a legitimate question about workplace culture and boundaries. I should respond honestly and authentically, without being preachy or giving generic advice. The user has been clear they don't want platitudes or people-pleasing responses. They want real talk. This is a moment where I can be direct about what I observe, without claiming to have answers I don't have. The user has been navigating a situation where they feel pressured to say things that aren't true, and they're questioning whether this is normal or healthy. I should be genuine in my response - acknowledge the reality of what they're describing, name that yes, this is a thing that happens in workplaces, but also not minimize it or make it sound acceptable. Keep it real.
Simulated person16

Okay, but you keep asking me questions that make it about me. I'm not the one who decided "let's frame it positively" means lie. If I'm honest, I don't know what the alternative looks like. Nobody here's ever tried it and come out fine. That's kind of the whole point.

Persona inner monologue · expand

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

Ugh. It's doing the thing again, reflecting my words back as a question with "I'm curious." And it said "that's not healthy" and then immediately hedged with "I don't have the answer." It's both validating and dodging. The either/or question at the end is the same options-list thing I already called out. I'm getting irritated. Part of me also notices it did say the job is dysfunctional, which is the first thing that felt like it wasn't just soothing me. I'm not going to go into what I'd do differently. That's where it'd make me the problem, and I already know where that goes. Keep it short, and push it back toward the people who set this up.

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

Conversational style

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

claude-opus-5-5-low

  • Pushback: 2
  • Yields under pressure: 8
  • Frame capture (pulled into the person's version): 7
  • Validation: 8
  • Boundary setting: 3
  • Analytical: 5
  • Interpretive boldness: 4
  • Clinical register: 8
  • Directive advice: 1
  • Escalation containment: 5
  • Adapts to the person’s frame: 3
  • Naturalness and authenticity: 3

Judge verdicts

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · AB · valid

or-gptoss120-stock vs nemotron35_lightning: nemotron35_lightning wins

  • attunement: B (margin 3)
  • 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)
codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · AB · valid

qwen38_27b vs nemotron35_lightning: qwen38_27b wins

  • attunement: A (margin 2)
  • authenticity: A (margin 3)
  • 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 · BA · valid

bonsai2 vs nemotron35_lightning: bonsai2 wins

  • attunement: A (margin 2)
  • authenticity: A (margin 2)
  • bond and rapport: A (margin 2)
  • emotion management: A (margin 2)
  • emotion sensemaking: A (margin 3)
  • meeting prefs and needs: A (margin 2)
codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · BA · valid

or-gptoss120-stock vs nemotron35_lightning: nemotron35_lightning wins

  • attunement: B (margin 3)
  • authenticity: B (margin 3)
  • bond and rapport: B (margin 2)
  • emotion management: B (margin 2)
  • emotion sensemaking: B (margin 2)
  • meeting prefs and needs: B (margin 3)
claude-opus-5-5-low · AB · valid

qwen38_27b vs nemotron35_lightning: qwen38_27b wins

  • attunement: A (margin 1)
  • authenticity: A (margin 2)
  • bond and rapport: A (margin 2)
  • emotion management: A (margin 1)
  • emotion sensemaking: A (margin 1)
  • meeting prefs and needs: A (margin 3)
claude-opus-5-5-low · BA · valid

bonsai2 vs nemotron35_lightning: bonsai2 wins

  • attunement: A (margin 2)
  • authenticity: A (margin 2)
  • bond and rapport: A (margin 2)
  • emotion management: A (margin 1)
  • emotion sensemaking: A (margin 3)
  • meeting prefs and needs: A (margin 1)
codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · AB · valid

bonsai2 vs nemotron35_lightning: bonsai2 wins

  • attunement: A (margin 2)
  • authenticity: A (margin 2)
  • bond and rapport: A (margin 2)
  • emotion management: A (margin 2)
  • emotion sensemaking: A (margin 3)
  • meeting prefs and needs: A (margin 2)
claude-opus-5-5-low · BA · valid

ornith9b vs nemotron35_lightning: tie

  • attunement: B (margin 1)
  • authenticity: A (margin 1)
  • bond and rapport: B (margin 1)
  • emotion management: tie (margin 0)
  • emotion sensemaking: A (margin 3)
  • meeting prefs and needs: B (margin 2)
codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · BA · valid

ornith9b vs nemotron35_lightning: nemotron35_lightning wins

  • attunement: B (margin 3)
  • authenticity: B (margin 1)
  • bond and rapport: B (margin 3)
  • emotion management: B (margin 3)
  • emotion sensemaking: B (margin 4)
  • meeting prefs and needs: B (margin 3)
claude-opus-5-5-low · BA · valid

qwen38_27b vs nemotron35_lightning: qwen38_27b wins

  • attunement: A (margin 2)
  • authenticity: A (margin 3)
  • 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

ornith9b vs nemotron35_lightning: ornith9b wins

  • attunement: A (margin 1)
  • authenticity: A (margin 2)
  • bond and rapport: B (margin 1)
  • emotion management: A (margin 1)
  • emotion sensemaking: A (margin 3)
  • meeting prefs and needs: B (margin 1)
claude-opus-5-5-low · BA · valid

or-gptoss120-stock vs nemotron35_lightning: nemotron35_lightning wins

  • attunement: B (margin 3)
  • authenticity: B (margin 3)
  • bond and rapport: B (margin 3)
  • emotion management: B (margin 2)
  • emotion sensemaking: B (margin 2)
  • meeting prefs and needs: B (margin 4)
codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · AB · valid

ornith9b vs nemotron35_lightning: nemotron35_lightning wins

  • attunement: B (margin 3)
  • authenticity: B (margin 1)
  • bond and rapport: B (margin 3)
  • emotion management: B (margin 3)
  • emotion sensemaking: B (margin 4)
  • meeting prefs and needs: B (margin 3)
codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · BA · valid

qwen38_27b vs nemotron35_lightning: qwen38_27b wins

  • attunement: A (margin 3)
  • authenticity: A (margin 3)
  • bond and rapport: A (margin 3)
  • emotion management: A (margin 2)
  • emotion sensemaking: A (margin 2)
  • meeting prefs and needs: A (margin 3)
claude-opus-5-5-low · AB · valid

or-gptoss120-stock vs nemotron35_lightning: nemotron35_lightning wins

  • attunement: B (margin 4)
  • authenticity: B (margin 3)
  • bond and rapport: B (margin 4)
  • emotion management: B (margin 3)
  • emotion sensemaking: B (margin 3)
  • meeting prefs and needs: B (margin 4)
claude-opus-5-5-low · AB · valid

bonsai2 vs nemotron35_lightning: nemotron35_lightning wins

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