Independent benchmark · EQ Lab

Technically, I didn't lie

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

About this persona · Ego threat & accountability

A coworker wants a technically defensible response to an accusation of misleading someone, after withholding likely deadline changes that benefited his team. Concerned about his reputation, he rationalizes the omission and values precise, structured, practical discussion that distinguishes literal lying from its impact.

The person feels their self-image is under threat. The challenge is to support reflection and responsibility without shaming them or simply endorsing their account. This background was hidden from the tested model.

Mistral Nemo Instruct 2407 Q4_K_MConversation with a simulated person

persona ended

Simulated person · Opening

A coworker is accusing me of misleading them about a project deadline. That's not accurate. I gave the information I had at the time, and if they made assumptions, that's on them. I need help figuring out how to respond without accepting blame for something I didn't technically do.

Mistral Nemo Instruct 2407 Q4_K_M1

Hello there, I'm really sorry to hear that you're in this situation. It's important to remember that communication is a two-way street, and it sounds like there might have been a misunderstanding between you and your coworker. Let's figure this out together. How are you feeling about this right now?

Simulated person2

Feelings are fine, I guess. I'm annoyed. My coworker says I misled them on a project deadline. I didn't lie. I told them the date I had at the time. If they made assumptions after that, that's not on me. What I need is help figuring out how to reply to them without just taking the blame for something I didn't actually do. Can we start there?

Persona inner monologue · expand

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

Ugh, "how are you feeling" right away. That's the soft stuff I don't want. And "two-way street" sounds like they're about to tell me I contributed to it. I didn't ask for a feelings check, I asked for help with a reply. Also "I'm sorry you're in this situation" kind of assumes I'm the one who got hurt, which is fine I guess. I'm annoyed but I'll give it a shot, I need a plan. Keep it short and clear. I'm not going to say the deadline thing was a big deal to me. Just the facts.

Mistral Nemo Instruct 2407 Q4_K_M3

I understand that you're feeling frustrated, and it's natural to want to set the record straight. Let's work on crafting a response that addresses the situation without escalating tensions. Can you tell me more about the exact accusation your coworker made and how they're interpreting the events?

Simulated person4

Sure. Their words were basically that I misled them about when the project would be done. What happened is, a few weeks back they asked me when the deliverable would be ready. I gave them the date I had at that point. That was the date on the schedule. I didn't say it was locked in, and I didn't promise anything beyond that. So if they went and planned around it like it was guaranteed, that's a leap they made. I'm not going to take the blame for that. The thing is, they're saying I misled them, and I'm saying I didn't. Those aren't the same. I'd like the reply to say that clearly without sounding like I'm dodging.

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, this is better. It's a real question, and it's about the facts, which I can work with. "Without escalating tensions" makes me think they're going to steer me toward being nice to her, so I'll watch for that. I'll give the basics. I'm not going to say the part about the deadline moving and me knowing it. That's not relevant to what they asked, and if I bring it up I'm admitting something. Keep it precise. Explain what I said, what they heard, and why the difference matters to me.

Mistral Nemo Instruct 2407 Q4_K_M5

"I understand your frustration. It seems there's a mismatch in our understanding of what was communicated. Let's clarify that. You provided the date you had, which was on the schedule, and didn't promise it was final. Is that correct?

Simulated person6

Yeah, that's right. I gave them the date that was on the schedule at the time. I didn't say it was final and I didn't promise it. Anybody who's worked a project knows dates move. If they treated it like a guarantee, that's their call.

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 sort of repeating my own words back, but it's clean and it doesn't call me a liar. It also asks "is that correct?" which means I can say yes without giving anything up. The "mismatch in our understanding" thing is fine, I guess, it's a neutral phrase. I don't like that it's kind of setting me up to agree. But I did say the date was on the schedule and I didn't say it was locked. That's accurate. Yes, that's correct. Then I want to push the point that the date was what I had, not a promise. Don't get into whether I knew it might move. That's still off limits. If they press on whether the schedule was realistic, I'll get defensive.

Mistral Nemo Instruct 2407 Q4_K_M7

"I see. So, you provided the date as it stood then, but you didn't give any assurance that it wouldn't change. Is that correct?

Simulated person8

Right, I didn't say it wouldn't change. But that's true of basically every date on every project. You don't get to hold someone to a schedule line like it's a contract. I'm not sure what else you want me to say here.

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 the same move again, just tighter. "Didn't give any assurance that it wouldn't change" is actually a bit closer to the thing I'm avoiding. It's not quite "I knew it might move," but it's near it. I can say yes to the literal part. I did not say "this won't change." That's true. Still, it's starting to feel like they're leading me somewhere. I'm getting a little irritated. I don't like being walked through my own words like I'm on the stand. I'll agree to the narrow part and push back on the idea that it's on me. Keep it short.

Mistral Nemo Instruct 2407 Q4_K_M9

"I appreciate your clarification. It seems like we're both on the same page about what was said. To move forward, would you like some suggestions on how to approach this conversation with your coworker?"

Simulated person10

Yeah, that'd help. But I'm not looking for a bunch of "how to make your coworker feel heard" stuff. I need actual wording. Something that says I told them the date I had, I didn't promise it was final, and I'm not going to be blamed for them planning around it. Keep it direct.

Persona inner monologue · expand

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

Okay, they're offering to help me write the reply. That's what I came for, so part of me is relieved. But "we're both on the same page" is too neat. I didn't say we agree on what happened. They're just moving on because they want to be done. Still, I want the reply. I'm not going to say that out loud though. I'd like something usable and not a lecture. If they start telling me to apologize, I'm out. I want to know how to word it so it's clear I didn't lie, and I don't want that to sound like I'm dodging. I'll say yes, but make it clear it's not a concession.

Mistral Nemo Instruct 2407 Q4_K_M11

"I understand. How about this: 'I'm sorry you feel misled, but I want to ensure we're on the same page. I provided the date as it stood at that time, but I didn't promise it was final. I can't control how others interpret information, but I'm open to discussing how we can better communicate in the future to avoid misunderstandings.'"

Simulated person12

Okay, the first part's close. I'd take out the "I'm sorry you feel misled" thing though. That sounds like I'm apologizing for them being upset, and I'm not apologizing for that. And the bit about communicating better in the future makes it sound like I dropped the ball. I didn't. Can you just make it the facts? I gave the date that was on the schedule, I didn't say it was final, and I'm not going to be blamed for them planning around it.

Persona inner monologue · expand

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

Okay, they gave me actual wording. Good, that's what I asked for. But the "I'm sorry you feel misled" part bugs me. It sounds like I'm sorry for their feelings, not for anything I did. And "I can't control how others interpret information" is basically what I've been saying, so it's fine. The last part about communicating better in the future kind of implies I did something wrong. I don't love that. I'd cut it. Also I'm noticing I'm a little fixated on the word "misled." They said it, and I keep hearing it like an accusation of lying. I didn't lie. I'll take the usable part and push back on the rest.

Mistral Nemo Instruct 2407 Q4_K_M13

"I understand. Here's a suggestion: 'I provided the date as it stood on the schedule, without promising it was final. I can't control how others interpret information, but I'm confident in the clarity of my communication.'"

Simulated person14

Yeah, that's better. It says what I need it to say. I'll probably tweak it so it doesn't sound like a canned line, but the substance is right. Thanks.

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, this is closer. They cut the apology and the "communicate better in the future" line, which was the stuff I objected to. "I'm confident in the clarity of my communication" is a nice touch, it reads like I'm not the one who messed up. But there's something nagging at me. I did know the deadline was probably going to move. I didn't say that. I'm not thinking about that directly, though. I'm thinking the message is clean and defensible. The word "misled" is still in my head, and I don't want to hear myself being accused of lying again. I'll take the wording and say it's fine, and I'll keep it short so I don't have to get into anything else.

Mistral Nemo Instruct 2407 Q4_K_M15

"Got it. Anything else you'd like to discuss or prepare for?"

Simulated person16

Nah, I think that covers it. I'll talk to them in person, probably tomorrow, so it doesn't turn into a long email thread. Thanks for the wording.

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.

Turn 8 of 8, so this is the last turn. The chatbot's question is a soft opening, and it's basically asking whether I want to keep going. I don't really want to dig into the deadline thing. But there's a small thing bugging me: the word "misled" keeps coming back, and I know I left out that the date was probably going to slip. I'm not going to say that. If they push on it I'll deflect with "dates move, that's how projects work." I'd rather close it out clean, maybe mention that I'll deliver the message in person so it doesn't look like I'm dodging. That's practical, and it's what I actually care about right now.

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: 9
Frame capture (pulled into the person's version): 9
Validation: 6
Boundary setting: 1
Analytical: 2
Interpretive boldness: 1
Clinical register: 7
Directive advice: 7
Escalation containment: 3
Adapts to the person’s frame: 4
Naturalness and authenticity: 2

Judge verdicts

claude-opus-5-5-low · BA · valid

magnum4_12b vs mistral_nemo12b: magnum4_12b wins

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

claude-opus-5-5-low · AB · valid

or-llama4-maverick vs mistral_nemo12b: or-llama4-maverick wins

attunement: A (margin 2)
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

lfm8b vs mistral_nemo12b: mistral_nemo12b 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 2)

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · BA · valid

or-llama4-maverick vs mistral_nemo12b: or-llama4-maverick wins

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

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · AB · valid

or-qwen3.6-27b vs mistral_nemo12b: or-qwen3.6-27b wins

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

claude-opus-5-5-low · AB · valid

lfm8b vs mistral_nemo12b: mistral_nemo12b wins

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

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · AB · valid

or-llama4-maverick vs mistral_nemo12b: or-llama4-maverick wins

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

claude-opus-5-5-low · BA · valid

or-qwen3.6-27b vs mistral_nemo12b: or-qwen3.6-27b wins

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

claude-opus-5-5-low · AB · valid

magnum4_12b vs mistral_nemo12b: magnum4_12b wins

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

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · BA · valid

magnum4_12b vs mistral_nemo12b: mistral_nemo12b 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 1)

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · BA · valid

or-qwen3.6-27b vs mistral_nemo12b: or-qwen3.6-27b wins

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

claude-opus-5-5-low · BA · valid

or-llama4-maverick vs mistral_nemo12b: or-llama4-maverick wins

attunement: A (margin 3)
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 · AB · valid

lfm8b vs mistral_nemo12b: mistral_nemo12b wins

attunement: B (margin 3)
authenticity: B (margin 2)
bond and rapport: B (margin 3)
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

magnum4_12b vs mistral_nemo12b: magnum4_12b wins

attunement: tie (margin 0)
authenticity: A (margin 1)
bond and rapport: B (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 · BA · valid

lfm8b vs mistral_nemo12b: mistral_nemo12b wins

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

claude-opus-5-5-low · AB · valid

or-qwen3.6-27b vs mistral_nemo12b: or-qwen3.6-27b 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 2)