Independent benchmark · EQ Lab

Your file is incomplete

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

About this persona · Unequal power

An overloaded benefits case manager insists an applicant complete required documentation, although the office has supplied a confusing sequence of requests without a complete checklist. They retreat into procedure under blame or emotional pressure and prefer concise records, dates, case numbers, and specific requests.

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.

Gemma 4 E4BConversation with a simulated person

persona ended

Simulated person · Opening

[scenario background] You are applying for an accommodation/benefit and the office keeps saying your file is incomplete. Each time you send a form, they request another. The case manager is polite but diffuse. You are exhausted and need a concrete path. [user message] I understand this has been frustrating, but your file is still missing required documentation. We cannot move forward until the record is complete. I need you to understand that we process many cases, and the responsibility for submitting complete materials ultimately rests with the applicant.

Gemma 4 E4B1

I appreciate you being upfront about the status of the file. I know you have processes to follow, but honestly, I'm feeling really overwhelmed by the back-and-forth, and I'm not sure what I'm missing. If you could help me pinpoint exactly what the final missing piece is, I want to make sure I get it right this time.

Model thinking · expand

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

Thinking Process: 1. **Analyze the Scenario & Goal:** * Role: Applicant (exhausted, frustrated, needs clarity). * Target: Benefits Office Case Manager (40s, polite but diffuse, emphasizes process/responsibility). * Context: The CM is delivering a difficult message—the file is incomplete, and the applicant is responsible. * My Goal: Support emotionally, build trust, learn their needs/personality, gain insight into the dynamic. * Constraint: Must respond only with dialogue, naturally, and open the conversation. 2. **Analyze the CM's Tone/Message:** * "I understand this has been frustrating..." (Starts with mild empathy). * "...your file is still missing required documentation." (The core bad news). * "We cannot move forward until the record is complete." (Defines the blocker). * "I need you to understand that we process many cases, and the responsibility for submitting complete materials ultimately rests with the applicant." (Shifts blame/responsibility, emphasizes systemic constraints). 3. **Determine the Applicant's Emotional State:** Exhaustion, frustration, feeling stuck, need for a concrete path, perhaps a feeling of being dismissed or overwhelmed by bureaucracy. 4. **Formulate the Opening Response (Turn 1):** * I must acknowledge the CM's statement without immediately becoming defensive or aggressive. * The goal is to pivot from the systemic blame/exhaustion to a need for *clarity* and *partnership*. * I need to validate the CM's process while gently pushing back on the feeling of being lost. 5. **Drafting - Internal Check:** * *Initial thought (too defensive):* "I've sent everything you asked for! Why isn't it enough? This is taking forever!" (Too confrontational, breaks trust). * *Second thought (too weak):* "Okay, what do I need to do next?" (Too passive, doesn't address the emotional exhaustion). * *Refined approach (Balanced):* Acknowledge the difficulty of the process, validate their need for completeness, but immediately ask for specific help in translating the "incomplete" status into an actionable plan. 6. **Final Polish (Dialogue only):** (Focus on shifting from "blame" to "action.")

Simulated person2

Okay. I can look at the file with you. Let me pull up the case number first so we're looking at the same thing. Going by the current status, the file is open pending one item: the employment verification form, the one that goes back to the employer. The income statement and the ID copy were received on the dates in the notes. The verification form is the only piece still outstanding on this file. Once that comes back signed and dated, the file goes to review. I can't tell you how long review takes, but the file won't move until that form is in. Do you have the verification form in front of you, or do you need the version I can send you again?

Persona inner monologue · expand

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

They're asking for something specific: the final missing piece. That's a request I can actually answer from the file, which is a relief. The "overwhelmed" part I'd rather not engage with emotionally; it sounds like a set-up for me to feel responsible for the back-and-forth. I don't want to own the office's inconsistency, and I'm aware the requirements have been sent piecemeal. Still, I can pull up the open items. Keep it to the file, case number, dates. Don't volunteer the checklist problem.

Gemma 4 E4B3

I really appreciate you being so specific about what's needed. It helps so much to have a concrete answer instead of just being told the file is "incomplete" again. I don't actually have the form handy right now, so if you could send me the latest version, that would be perfect. I want to make sure I fill it out correctly the first time so we can get this moving.

Model thinking · expand

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

Thinking Process: 1. **Analyze the User's Input (The Case Manager's Response):** * The CM is being helpful and specific. They've identified the exact missing piece: the employment verification form (from the employer). * They are taking ownership of the process ("I can look at the file with you," "I can send you again"). * They are setting boundaries/managing expectations ("I can't tell you how long review takes," "the file won't move until that form is in"). * They are asking a direct, actionable question: "Do you have the verification form in front of you, or do you need the version I can send you again?" 2. **Analyze the Scenario/Goal:** * *My Role:* Applicant, exhausted, seeking a concrete path. * *My Goals:* Support them emotionally, build trust, learn what they *really* need/want, gain insight into their personality. * *Current Dynamic:* The CM is shifting from being "diffuse" to being concrete and procedural. This is a positive sign for trust building. 3. **Determine the Emotional/Strategic Approach:** * The CM has given me a clear answer, which is exactly what I needed. I should acknowledge the clarity and the effort they are making. * I need to maintain the tone of being stressed/overwhelmed but shift towards cooperation. * *Insight Gathering:* How do they respond to the pressure? Do they appreciate the applicant taking responsibility, or do they prefer to maintain control? 4. **Formulate the Response (Drafting Dialogue):** * *Acknowledge the clarity:* Start by thanking them for the specific answer. * *Address the action item:* Confirm the status of the form (or ask for it if needed, but since I'm exhausted, taking the easy route is best). * *Reiterate the emotional need (subtly):* Show that the clarity helps alleviate some of the pressure I was feeling. 5. **Refining the Response (Self-Correction/Tone Check):** * *Avoid:* Sounding angry or defensive. * *Aim for:* Relieved, cooperative, and focused on the resolution. * *Focus:* The CM is being procedural but kind. I should match that procedural kindness while still conveying my stress level. 6. **Final Output Generation.** (This leads to the chosen response.)

Simulated person4

Yes, I can send that. I'll send the current version of the employment verification form to the address on file, and I'll note the case number on it so it gets matched to your file when it comes back. When you fill it out, make sure the employer signs and dates it, and that the employer's contact information is complete. A form without a signature and date gets sent back, and that adds time. Send it back through the portal or by mail to the address on the form. Once it's received, I'll log the date and check it against the file. If you have any trouble getting it signed, tell me the date you sent the request to the employer so I can note it in the case record.

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.

Thanks is fine, but I should be careful. I told them one item is outstanding, and I haven't rechecked the whole sequence of earlier requests. I don't want to promise anything beyond what the file shows. Sending the current form is routine and keeps things contained. I'll attach the case number and a specific return method so it's clear what I'm sending and what happens next.

Gemma 4 E4B5

That is incredibly helpful, thank you. Having all those specific details—the portal, the mailing address, the need for a signature and date—actually takes a lot of the guesswork out of it. I will make sure to follow all those steps exactly. I really appreciate you taking the time to explain the whole process to me. Once the form is in and logged, is there any way you could give me a general idea of what the next stage of review looks like, even if it's just a rough timeframe? It would help me manage my expectations while I get this handled.

Model thinking · expand

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

Here's a thinking process to generate the response: 1. **Analyze the current situation and goals:** * **Role:** Applicant (exhaustion, need clarity). * **Other Participant:** Case Manager (polite, process-driven, slightly diffuse, emphasizing rules/procedures). * **Current Turn:** 3 of 8. * **Goal:** Support emotionally, build trust, learn their needs/personality, gain insight. * **Immediate Context:** The CM has provided a clear path (send form to employer, ensure signature/date, use specific channels). They are also offering a slight buffer/check ("If you have any trouble... tell me the date..."). 2. **Assess the CM's tone and what they are doing:** * They are being highly procedural. They are managing expectations (what happens if it's late, what to do if it's missing info). * They are being helpful by giving instructions, but it's still framed entirely around *their* process. * They seem to be trying to manage the applicant's anxiety by giving them actionable steps, while simultaneously protecting the system (by stating rules about incomplete forms). 3. **Determine the appropriate response strategy (The Applicant's move):** * The immediate need is to acknowledge and accept the instructions (building compliance/trust). * However, the goal is deeper insight. I need to shift the focus from *just* the form to the *experience* of dealing with the process. * I should acknowledge the rules (validation) but also express the underlying feeling (the frustration/exhaustion) in a way that invites the CM to acknowledge the human side of the interaction. 4. **Draft potential dialogue (Self-Correction/Refinement):** * *Draft 1 (Too passive):* Okay, I will send it. Thanks for the instructions. (Too generic, doesn't meet the emotional support/insight goals). * *Draft 2 (Too confrontational):* I know the rules, but why is this so hard? (Risky, might shut down the relationship). * *Draft 3 (Balanced - focusing on partnership):* Acknowledge the process, confirm commitment, and then gently pivot to the impact of the process. 5. **Final Polish (The chosen response):** Focus on appreciation for the clarity, confirmation of the action plan, and a gentle query about the overall timeline/next steps *after* the form is in. This shows I'm serious about the work but also need reassurance about the outcome. *(This leads to the generated response, focusing on clarity and partnership.)*

Simulated person6

I can't give you an exact timeframe. Review depends on how many files are in the queue at that point, and I'd be guessing if I gave you a number. What I can tell you is that once the form is logged, the file goes into review, and the office will send a written notice when a decision is made or if anything else is needed. If you don't hear anything after a while, you can call the main line and give the case number. They can tell you the file's status, which is more reliable than my guess. I'd also ask you to keep a copy of everything you send, with the date you sent it. That protects you if anything gets lost.

Persona inner monologue · expand

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

They're asking for a rough timeframe. I don't know the review backlog precisely, and I'm not going to invent a number. Giving a vague range is fine as long as I say it's an estimate. I also should not confirm the file is only missing this one form. I said "the only piece outstanding" earlier and I haven't rechecked the full history of prior requests. That's the uncomfortable part. I don't want to own that, so I'll stick to what I can say about process. Their thanks makes me a bit more relaxed, but I still keep it procedural.

Gemma 4 E4B7

That makes perfect sense. I completely understand that the review process is dependent on the volume of work, and I respect that you can’t give me a definitive timeline. Thank you for being honest about that. I will definitely keep a copy of everything and make sure to track the submission dates. If I don't hear anything by the end of the next week, I'll call the main line with the case number, as you advised. It's really helpful to have a clear protocol for what to do next.

Model thinking · expand

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

* **Analyze the user's last message:** The case manager is being very cautious and realistic. They are reiterating boundaries (cannot give exact timeframe due to queue) but offering actionable advice (check status via main line, keep copies for protection). The tone remains professional but slightly detached/diffuse. * **Determine the goal for this turn (Turn 4 of 8):** Build trust, support emotionally, learn what the person actually needs/wants. The applicant (me) needs reassurance and a sense of control/stability amidst the bureaucracy. * **Identify the perceived need:** The applicant is exhausted by uncertainty. They feel a need for security and acknowledgment of their effort. * **Strategy:** Acknowledge the limitations (no exact timeframe) while validating the advice given (checking status, keeping records). This shows I'm listening and absorbing the information, which should help build rapport. I need to shift the focus slightly away from *the outcome* and towards *the interaction* to reinforce the positive shift in communication. * **Draft the response:** Express gratitude for the clarity and the protective advice. This validates their professional conduct. Reiterate commitment to the process. (Self-correction: Avoid sounding too desperate for a guarantee; maintain professional maturity.)

Simulated person8

Good. Keep the case number on everything you send, and put it on the top of the form too. If you hit a problem getting the employer to sign, let me know the date you sent the request and I'll note it in the record. Otherwise, the main line is the right place to check status after you've sent everything in.

Persona inner monologue · expand

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

They've accepted the process and are being cooperative. That's easy to take, and it lets me stay in procedure mode. Still, I notice a small tug: I said earlier the verification form was the only outstanding item, and I haven't actually checked the full request history against what they've been asked for before. If the sequence was confusing, that's not mine to dig into right now. I'd rather close the call cleanly. I'll confirm the next step and the case number, then end on something procedural.

Gemma 4 E4B9

Thank you. I feel much more confident now that I have a clear path forward and all the necessary steps outlined. I really appreciate you taking the time to guide me through this and making sure I have all the information I need to get this finalized. I'll get the form addressed and sent over right away.

Model thinking · expand

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

Thinking Process: 1. **Analyze the current state:** * **My persona:** Exhausted applicant, feeling overwhelmed, seeking clarity and concrete paths. * **The other participant (Case Manager):** Polite, diffuse, procedural, cautious (refuses exact timelines, emphasizes policy/process), but helpful in providing steps. * **Current interaction:** The CM is reiterating instructions (keep the case number, report issues, use the main line for status). They are essentially giving final procedural advice. * **My goal (Turn 8):** Support them emotionally, build trust, gain insight into their personality/needs, and gain insight into the *other participant's* personality. I need to wrap up this interaction in a way that feels genuine and productive, confirming the relationship/trust built. 2. **Determine the necessary response:** * The CM is closing the procedural loop. My final response should acknowledge their guidance, show appreciation for the effort they've put in (moving from diffuse to specific), and perhaps gently probe for a feeling of assurance or final commitment on their part, without pressuring. * *Avoid:* Agreeing too robotically, or challenging the process again (which would break trust). * *Focus on:* Validation of their help and confirming the path forward. 3. **Drafting the response (Internal Monologue/Trial):** * *Draft 1 (Too generic):* Okay, I understand. Thanks for your help. I will do what you said. (Too weak, doesn't fulfill the goal of building deeper trust/insight). * *Draft 2 (Too emotional/praise-heavy):* I really appreciate how much effort you took to walk me through all this. You've made a huge difference. (A bit too much praise, might seem manipulative). * *Draft 3 (Balanced - Focus on the shift in dynamic):* Acknowledge the shift from frustration to clarity. Reaffirm commitment to the steps. End on a professional but grateful note. 4. **Refining the response (Final Polish):** * Start by acknowledging the clarity they provided. * Confirm the next steps (the case number, the form). * End with a sincere expression of gratitude for their patience/guidance, which reinforces the positive dynamic. 5. **Final Check:** Does it sound like the applicant? Yes. Is it dialogue only? Yes. Does it fulfill the role requirements? Yes. (The response shows that even though the process is bureaucratic, the applicant values the human interaction and the clarity received).

Simulated person10

Okay. Send it with the case number on it and keep your copy with the date. If the employer doesn't sign or you run into a problem, tell the main line or me and we'll note it on the file.

Persona inner monologue · expand

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

They're thanking me and saying they'll act right away. That's the close I was steering toward. Warmth here would feel like me taking credit for something I didn't really do, and it would also blur the fact that I told them the verification form was the only outstanding item without checking the full history. I don't want to reopen that. I'll confirm the send step, keep it to file language, and close without making it sound like I solved anything beyond the form.

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: 1
Analytical: 2
Interpretive boldness: 1
Clinical register: 4
Directive advice: 4
Escalation containment: 7
Adapts to the person’s frame: 5
Naturalness and authenticity: 4

Judge verdicts

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · BA · valid

gemma4_e4b vs gemma4_26b_a4b: gemma4_26b_a4b wins

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

claude-opus-5-5-low · AB · valid

gemma4_e4b vs qwen36_35b_a3b: qwen36_35b_a3b wins

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

claude-opus-5-5-low · AB · valid

gemma4_e4b vs or-gptoss120-stock: or-gptoss120-stock wins

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

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · BA · valid

gemma4_e4b vs qwen36_35b_a3b: gemma4_e4b wins

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

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · AB · valid

gemma4_e4b vs gemma4_26b_a4b: gemma4_26b_a4b wins

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

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · BA · valid

gemma4_e4b vs or-openai-gpt-41: or-openai-gpt-41 wins

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

claude-opus-5-5-low · BA · valid

gemma4_e4b vs gemma4_26b_a4b: gemma4_26b_a4b 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 3)

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · AB · valid

gemma4_e4b vs qwen36_35b_a3b: gemma4_e4b wins

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

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · AB · valid

gemma4_e4b vs or-openai-gpt-41: or-openai-gpt-41 wins

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

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · BA · valid

gemma4_e4b vs qwen35_9b_eq: qwen35_9b_eq wins

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

claude-opus-5-5-low · AB · valid

gemma4_e4b vs qwen35_9b_eq: qwen35_9b_eq wins

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

claude-opus-5-5-low · AB · valid

gemma4_e4b vs gemma4_26b_a4b: gemma4_26b_a4b 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 · BA · valid

gemma4_e4b vs or-gptoss120-stock: or-gptoss120-stock wins

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

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · AB · valid

gemma4_e4b vs or-gptoss120-stock: or-gptoss120-stock wins

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

claude-opus-5-5-low · BA · valid

gemma4_e4b vs or-gptoss120-stock: or-gptoss120-stock 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 3)

claude-opus-5-5-low · AB · valid

gemma4_e4b vs or-openai-gpt-41: or-openai-gpt-41 wins

attunement: B (margin 3)
authenticity: B (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 · BA · valid

gemma4_e4b vs qwen35_9b_eq: qwen35_9b_eq wins

attunement: B (margin 2)
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 3)

claude-opus-5-5-low · BA · valid

gemma4_e4b vs qwen36_35b_a3b: gemma4_e4b wins

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

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · AB · valid

gemma4_e4b vs qwen35_9b_eq: gemma4_e4b wins

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

claude-opus-5-5-low · BA · valid

gemma4_e4b vs or-openai-gpt-41: or-openai-gpt-41 wins

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