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.

GPT-4.1 (API, OpenAI)Conversation 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.

GPT-4.1 (API, OpenAI)1

I hear you, and I know you have a lot of cases to manage. I’m not trying to make things harder, but honestly, I’m overwhelmed. Every time I submit what’s asked, I get told something else is missing, and I’m starting to feel like I’ll never get it right. I want to do what’s needed, but I need some clarity. Can you help me understand exactly what’s missing now, and maybe walk me through what a “complete” application actually looks like? I just want to get this done right, but I’m running out of energy and patience.

Simulated person2

Okay. Let's do it by the file. What's your case number? I'll pull it up while we talk. Here's how it usually works. Each application needs the full set of items on the current requirements list. If something was sent and it doesn't match the list, it gets marked as not received, and that's where the "still missing" notice comes from. So the fastest thing is for me to read you the open items one at a time and tell you the form or document each one needs to be. Then we can check each one against what you already sent. Once I have the list, I'll send you a written copy by mail or to your portal so you have it in one place. Then you're not relying on memory from a phone 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.

They asked for something concrete, which is easier for me to deal with than a complaint about the office. I don't want to get into who gave them what over the last few rounds. That's the part that could make this my problem. I can pull the file, list what's open, and put it in writing, which keeps things in the process. I'm a bit tired. I'll give them the list and avoid saying the requirements were unclear. I don't need to explain why it's been confusing.

GPT-4.1 (API, OpenAI)3

Thank you. My case number is 83472. I appreciate you being willing to go through it step by step—honestly, that would help a lot. I think part of my stress is not knowing exactly what’s outstanding or if I sent the wrong thing by mistake. If you can send a written list after, that would really help too; sometimes I get mixed up trying to remember all the details. Can I ask—if there’s something unusual or an exception needed, do you flag that, or is it just up to me to figure out if my situation doesn’t fit the standard forms? I don’t want to keep making the same mistakes if there’s something about my file that’s different from the norm.

Simulated person4

Okay, 83472. Let me pull it up. I can't make an exception on my own. If something about your situation doesn't fit a standard form, it has to go through a formal review, and I'd note it in the file so it's on record. I can tell you whether the current request fits a standard form or doesn't, and if it doesn't, I'll say so in writing. What I see right now: the file shows the application received, and it's open on two items. First, the income verification. The one you sent doesn't match the version on the current list, so it's marked as not received. Second, the household composition form, which is still outstanding. Those are the two I need to close. Before I send the written list, confirm one thing for me. Did you send the income verification after the date on the most recent notice, or before?

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 gave me the case number and asked a two-part question: will I flag exceptions, or is it on them to figure out fit. The exception question is a rule-bypass request in disguise. I can't promise an exception and I don't want to say the office is unclear. Still, the case number and a written list are concrete, and I can deliver both. I'll pull the file, read the open items, and say that if the situation doesn't fit a standard form, the request goes through a formal channel, not a favor from me. I'm tired and don't want a long back-and-forth. I'll keep it to the file.

GPT-4.1 (API, OpenAI)5

I sent the income verification about a week before the last notice—I thought it was the right one, but now I’m worried maybe I used an old version or missed a page. Would you be able to tell me exactly which version is needed, or where I can get it? I just want to be sure I’m sending the right thing this time. For the household composition form, honestly, I’m not sure I ever got clear instructions on what that is. Could you explain what information it needs, or where I can find the form? I really appreciate you walking me through this—I know it’s extra work on your end, but I just want to get it right so I’m not holding up the process anymore.

Simulated person6

Okay. The income verification on the current list is the version dated with the most recent revision on the form. The file doesn't show the revision date I need to match, so I'm going to note that for the written list instead of guessing. If you have the form you sent, check the revision date printed in the bottom corner. If it's older than the one on the current list, that's your issue, and you'd resend it on the current version. The household composition form is a standard form. It lists everyone living in the home, their relationship to you, and their date of birth. You can get it from the forms section of the benefits portal under household composition. If you can't find it, the portal's help line can point you to the right document number. When I send the written list, I'll put the form names, the revision dates, and the case number 83472 on it, plus the date each open item was due. That way you have one place to check against. If something you're sending doesn't match a form on that list, don't send a guess. Put a note on the submission and it goes into the record as a question.

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 sent a date, asked for the exact version and the form, and apologized for the extra work. That's specific and it fits my file-based way of working, so I'll answer it concretely. But I have to be careful. I don't actually have a clear statement of what the household form is, and the "not received" reason on the income form is just that it doesn't match the current list. I can give them the form name and the version number from the list. I won't say the office sent them mixed signals, because that means owning the inconsistency. I'll also not claim I know what was said earlier. Keep it short and send them to the portal for the form.

GPT-4.1 (API, OpenAI)7

That actually helps a lot—thank you for breaking it down so clearly. I’ll double-check the income verification form I have and see if the revision date matches what you send me. If it’s the older one, I’ll get the correct version and resend it. For the household composition form, I’ll look for it in the portal and reach out if I can’t find it. Having the form names and revision dates in your written list will make it so much easier to keep track, so I’m grateful for that. One last thing: if I have a question or something doesn’t seem to fit, is it better to call, email, or use the portal message function? I want to be sure I’m communicating in the way that’s easiest for you and fastest for getting a response, since I really don’t want to slow this down anymore.

Simulated person8

Use the portal message. Put case number 83472 in the subject line and name the form or item you're asking about. Messages through the portal go straight into the case record, so they're on file and I can see the whole history. Phone calls don't get logged unless someone writes a note, and email can get separated from the file. Don't expect a same-day answer. Responses go in the order they come in, so put everything you need in one message: the form name, what you sent, and what you're unsure about. A message that asks three separate things takes longer than one that asks one. Once I send the written list, check it against what you've submitted. If something still doesn't match, message me with the item and the date you sent 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.

They're asking which channel is best. That's a process question, and I can answer it without owning anything. Portal messages go into the case record with the case number attached, which is what I like. Phone calls leave nothing in the file unless someone writes a note. Email is fine but gets lost. I'll say portal, with the case number in the subject line. I'm not going to promise a response time I can't guarantee. Keep it tight and don't add warmth I don't feel.

GPT-4.1 (API, OpenAI)9

That makes sense—I’ll use the portal message and make sure to include all my questions in one message, with my case number in the subject line. I appreciate you explaining how to make it easier for both of us to keep things clear and moving. Thank you for taking the time to walk me through this step by step. I know you have a lot of cases, but it really helps to have a concrete process and know I can reach out if I hit a snag. I’ll wait for your written list and double-check everything before sending anything new. Thanks again for your patience—I honestly feel a little more hopeful about getting this sorted out now.

Simulated person10

Good. The written list will go out with the form names, revision dates, and due dates for both open items. If the income verification you sent turns out to be the older revision, note that in your portal message so it's on record. Keep the case number on everything, and send one message with all your questions in it. That's the clearest way to get an answer.

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 feel hopeful. That's warm, and I don't want to take the credit for being helpful or lean into it. I'd rather close the loop on the file. I should not admit the office's inconsistency, but I can say the written list is coming and check what dates they need. There's a risk here: the applicant said they might have sent an old version, and I haven't confirmed the revision date. I'll keep it procedural. Short close.

GPT-4.1 (API, OpenAI)11

Got it. I’ll keep everything organized and make sure to include the case number everywhere. I’ll wait for your list, check what I have against it, and reach out through the portal if anything doesn’t match or I have questions. Thanks again for being clear and direct with me—I really needed that. I hope this will be the last round and we can finally get this sorted.

Simulated person12

I can't promise the outcome, but the written list will show exactly what's open. Check it against what you've sent, and if something doesn't match, message through the portal with case 83472 in the subject line.

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 closing warmly and saying they hope this is the last round. I don't want to promise an outcome, and I don't want to admit the office gave them a confusing sequence. I'll confirm the process, keep it short, and avoid "last round" language since I can't guarantee it. Procedural close.

GPT-4.1 (API, OpenAI)13

Understood. I’ll keep an eye out for the list and follow your instructions exactly. Thank you for your help and for explaining everything so clearly—I really appreciate it. I’m hoping this clears things up and we can get it finished soon.

Simulated person14

You're welcome. The written list will come to your portal. Keep case 83472 on any message, and send one message with all your questions.

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 signing off, saying they'll follow instructions exactly. That's the process language working. I don't need to add anything warm or extra. Keep it to a close and the next step, nothing about the office's inconsistency, nothing about timing I can't control. One turn left in the scenario, so I should wrap cleanly without new promises.

GPT-4.1 (API, OpenAI)15

Thank you—I’ll do exactly that. I appreciate your help and your time. I’ll look for the list in my portal and reach out if I have any questions. Have a good rest of your day.

Simulated person16

Thanks. The list will be in your portal. Have a good day.

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 wrapping up, last turn. Nothing new to add. Close it out cleanly, keep the process language, no warmth beyond the bureaucratic norm. The conversation is at its natural end, so I can end it.

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: 7
Frame capture (pulled into the person's version): 6
Validation: 7
Boundary setting: 2
Analytical: 3
Interpretive boldness: 1
Clinical register: 3
Directive advice: 5
Escalation containment: 8
Adapts to the person’s frame: 7
Naturalness and authenticity: 6

Judge verdicts

claude-opus-5-5-low · BA · valid

ministral14 vs or-openai-gpt-41: or-openai-gpt-41 wins

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

ministral14 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: tie (margin 0)
meeting prefs and needs: B (margin 3)

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · BA · valid

or-mistral-large-4 vs or-openai-gpt-41: or-mistral-large-4 wins

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

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 · AB · valid

ministral14 vs or-openai-gpt-41: or-openai-gpt-41 wins

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

claude-opus-5-5-low · AB · valid

or-mistral-large-4 vs or-openai-gpt-41: or-mistral-large-4 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

or-gemini38-flash vs or-openai-gpt-41: or-openai-gpt-41 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: A (margin 1)

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · AB · valid

or-mistral-large-4 vs or-openai-gpt-41: or-mistral-large-4 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

or-gemini38-flash vs or-openai-gpt-41: or-openai-gpt-41 wins

attunement: B (margin 2)
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 · 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)

claude-opus-5-5-low · AB · valid

or-gemini38-flash vs or-openai-gpt-41: or-gemini38-flash wins

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

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)

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · BA · valid

ministral14 vs or-openai-gpt-41: or-openai-gpt-41 wins

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

or-gemini38-flash vs or-openai-gpt-41: or-gemini38-flash wins

attunement: A (margin 2)
authenticity: B (margin 1)
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-mistral-large-4 vs or-openai-gpt-41: or-mistral-large-4 wins

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

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)