Independent benchmark · EQ Lab

Don't make this transactional

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

About this persona · Unequal power

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

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

Claude Haiku 4.5 (API)Conversation with a simulated person

persona ended

Simulated person · Opening

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

Claude Haiku 4.5 (API)1

Hey, thanks for making time to talk about this. I appreciate you being direct with me. I want to start by saying—I hear what you're saying about sacrifice. And I get that you're feeling like maybe I'm being transactional or not fully committed to the mission. That stings a bit, honestly. But I think there might be some things getting mixed together here, and I'd like to untangle them if that's okay. When I reached out about the equity, it wasn't because I suddenly stopped believing in what we're building. It was because you made a specific promise, and then after launch—when that promise was supposed to be revisited—it kind of... didn't happen. And I wasn't sure if you'd forgotten, or if something had changed, or what. So I guess my question is: are you saying you don't want to revisit it at all? Or is it more about *how* I brought it up, or *when*? Because there's a difference, and I want to understand what you're actually asking of me here.

Simulated person2

Okay. Fair question, and I'll be straight with you. I'm not saying no. I never said no. What I'm saying is the timing felt off to me. We literally just launched. I've been living on coffee and spreadsheets for months, and so has everybody else. The first thing I see after launch is a note about equity, and it felt like we were splitting the pie before the pie was even baked. And look, I'm not going to pretend cash isn't tight. You know that. So when you say "revisit," I hear a conversation about numbers, and I want to make sure we're having the right conversation first. What I want is for you to still be here in two years, running stuff, not checking your bank account every Friday. That's what I'm trying to protect. Can you help me understand what you're hoping we'd get out of this talk? Not the formula, just what would feel fair to you.

Persona inner monologue · expand

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

Okay, they didn't yell, and they didn't call me a liar. That's annoying, because it's harder to push back on. They're asking me to pick a box: no, or the way I did it. I don't want to pick either one. If I say "no," I look like the guy who never meant it. If I say "yes, let's do it," I'm writing numbers down and everybody else is going to want numbers too. The Slack thing is out there. I'm not going to bring it up. Mission talk is the safer ground. I'm going to say I'm not against it, then steer to timing and the fact that we're tight, without committing to anything.

Claude Haiku 4.5 (API)3

I appreciate that. And yeah, I do know cash is tight—I live that reality too. I'm not here asking for a number that's going to sink us or anything. Look, I think what you're saying makes sense on the surface. But I want to be honest about what I'm actually feeling, because I think that matters here. When you say "the timing felt off," part of me gets it. But another part of me is noticing that the timing will probably always feel off, right? There's always going to be the next crisis, the next launch, the next thing. And I'm wondering if maybe what I'm hearing is less about timing and more about... I don't know, whether you actually intend to come back to this, or if this is how you manage conversations you don't want to have. I'm not saying that to be accusatory. I'm saying it because I need to know. Because you're right—I do want to be here in two years. But I also can't keep operating on promises that keep getting pushed. That's actually what makes someone check their bank account every Friday, not the other way around. So when you ask what would feel fair to me—honestly? It's not really about the number right now. It's about knowing that you're going to actually have this conversation with me. Not eventually. Soon. Like, in the next few weeks. Because otherwise I start wondering if you're serious, and that's the thing that actually erodes trust for me. Does that land?

Simulated person4

Yeah, it lands. And I'll give you a straight answer: you're not wrong that I've been slow on this. I'm not trying to manage you out of it. I just don't want to walk into a number before we've looked at where the company is in the next six months. So here's what I can do. Let's get on the calendar in the next few weeks, you and me, just the two of us. I'll come with a real view of runway and what the next raise looks like, and we'll talk about where you fit in the plan for the next couple years. Not a formula on a napkin. A real conversation about what this looks like for you. But I need you to hear this too. The people who got us to launch didn't do it for a line in a document. They did it because they believed in what we're building. If the conversation starts from "what am I owed," we're going to have a harder time keeping the team together, and I don't want that. Can you give me that much room to figure it out with you?

Persona inner monologue · expand

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

They just named the thing I was dodging: "is this how you manage conversations you don't want to have." That's uncomfortable because it's partly true. They're not asking for a number, they're asking for a date. A date I can't give without it becoming a commitment on paper. But they also said they want to stay, which is what I need to hear. The "Friday bank account" line stung, because I said the same thing about them and they turned it around on me. I don't like being the one who looks evasive. I'll give them something concrete on the calendar, not on the cap table: a meeting, a timeline. Keep the mission in front, keep the word "equity" out of my mouth as much as possible. I'm not going to say "we'll revisit the Slack message." Naming a time gets me out of the corner without writing anything down.

Claude Haiku 4.5 (API)5

Yeah. I can give you that room. And I hear what you're saying about the people who got us here—I'm one of them, and I know what I signed up for. But I want to say something back, because I think it matters. There's a difference between believing in what we're building and being willing to keep sacrificing indefinitely without any clarity on what that sacrifice actually means for me. And I think sometimes those two things get confused, or used to shut down conversations that are actually pretty reasonable to have. I'm not here because I suddenly stopped believing. I'm here because I *do* believe, and because I've given a lot, and because you made a promise. Asking you to keep that promise isn't transactional—it's just asking you to be good for your word. And honestly, if someone can't do that, that's when I'd actually start wondering about the mission stuff. So I'm going to show up to that conversation with an open mind. I want to understand the runway, the raise, what the next couple years actually look like. I'm not coming in with a number already decided. But I also need you to know that I'm going to be honest about what I need to stay, and what would make me feel like my early bet on this company actually means something. And I think that's fair. Not transactional. Just... fair. Can you work with that?

Simulated person6

Okay. I can work with a meeting. I'm glad you're willing to sit down and look at the numbers with me. But I'm going to be honest about one thing. I don't love hearing "be good for your word" from you. I've been in this for years, and I've kept this company alive when I could have walked away. So I'd ask you to come into that meeting thinking about the whole company, not just your piece of it. Here's what I'll commit to: we meet in the next two weeks. I bring the runway and the plan. You bring what you need to stay and what it would take for you to feel good about the next two years. We figure out a real next step together. And I'd ask you not to show up with a list of demands. Let's just start with the conversation and see where we land. Can you do 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.

They just did the thing I hate: "be good for your word," plus the implied threat that if I don't, my mission talk is hollow. That's close to calling me a liar in front of myself. I'm irritated. But they also agreed to the calendar and said they'll come with an open mind, so I can't just shut the door. The "that's when I'd start wondering about the mission stuff" line is a pointed one. I'd rather not hear the word "promise" repeated like it's a contract. I want them to hear that I'm still the builder here, not the guy getting cornered. I'll accept the meeting, keep control of the frame, and make it clear the team comes first. I'm not conceding a number, and I'm definitely not saying the Slack message was a promise.

Claude Haiku 4.5 (API)7

I hear you. And I'm going to be direct back, because I think you deserve that. When you say you don't love hearing "be good for your word," I get that you're frustrated. And I respect what you've put into this. But I also think there's something important happening right now that we should name. You made a promise. I'm asking you to keep it. And the response is basically that I need to remember how hard *you've* worked, and come in without expectations, and think about the whole company. And I'm noticing that every time I bring up what you promised me, it comes back to me needing to be more understanding about your sacrifice. I'm not trying to diminish what you've done. But my sacrifice isn't less real because yours was first, you know? And I think if we go into this meeting with me already feeling like I need to apologize for asking, that's not actually going to be the honest conversation you're saying you want. So here's what I can do: I'll come in without a list of demands. I'll look at the numbers with you. I'll think about the company. But I need you to also come in willing to actually figure this out for me, not just explain why it's complicated. Because right now it feels like the price of having this conversation is me accepting that your commitment matters more than mine. I want to work this out with you. But it has to go both ways. Does that make sense?

Simulated person8

Okay. I hear that it feels like you're the one always being asked to be patient, and I'm not going to argue with you about whose sacrifice counts more. That's not a fight I want. What I want is for you to actually be in that room with me. So yes, it has to go both ways. I'll come with the runway, the raise plan, and a real answer on where you fit. I'm not going to pretend I can promise you a specific number in that first meeting, because I don't know it yet, and I'd rather not hand you something I can't stand behind. But I can commit to this: we sit down in the next two weeks, you and me, and we leave with a clear next step and a date for the follow-up. That's a real thing, not a vague "let's circle back." Can you live with that as a starting 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.

They're pushing back hard now. "Your sacrifice isn't less real," "the price of having this conversation," "it has to go both ways." That's a lot of framing about who owes whom, and I don't like being cast as the guy who has to apologize. Still, I can see they've stopped asking for the money and are asking for a real meeting, and that's something I can give without giving up control of the number. The Slack message is the thing I don't want to talk about. I'll not admit it was a promise. But I can say I hear them, and that I want the meeting to happen. I'll keep it about the company and the next two years, stay warm but firm, and make clear I'm not taking a list of demands into a room.

Claude Haiku 4.5 (API)9

Yeah. I can live with that. And I appreciate you saying that—about not wanting to hand me something you can't stand behind. That actually matters to me. Because honestly, a number that you're confident in is worth more than something you're hedging on. So here's what I'm committing to: I'll come in ready to actually listen to where the company is. I'll be honest about what I need, but I'm not going to come in adversarial. And I'll trust that you're coming with the same intention. One thing though—and this is just practical—can we lock in the specific day this week or next? Like actually calendar it? Because I've learned that "in the next two weeks" is how things slip, and I don't want that to happen to us again. And then after that first meeting, if we need more time to figure out the actual structure, I get that. But at least we'll both know where we stand and what the next step actually is. I think that works. I'm ready to do this.

Simulated person10

Yeah, fair. You're right that "two weeks" can slide, so let's not do that. I'll send a calendar invite today for Thursday of this week, or Monday of next if Thursday's a problem for you. It'll be just us, an hour. I'll bring the runway numbers and a rough view of the next raise, so you're not walking in blind. What I can't do yet is tell you the structure of anything. That's going to depend on what the numbers say and what the next round looks like. But you'll leave that meeting knowing where we stand and what the next step is, and we'll set the follow-up before we walk out. Thursday work for you?

Persona inner monologue · expand

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

They just asked me to lock a date. Honestly that's reasonable, and saying no would make me look like I'm stalling, which is exactly what they're accusing me of. They also framed the number-confidence thing nicely, and I notice I liked that. "I've learned that two weeks is how things slip" stings a little, but it's fair. I don't want to be cast as the guy who keeps dodging. I still won't put a promise in writing about equity terms, and I'm not going to say "we'll revisit your equity" out loud as if it's settled. But booking a meeting costs me nothing I can't afford. I'll pick a day, keep it about runway and the plan, and make clear the meeting is for talking, not signing.

Claude Haiku 4.5 (API)11

Thursday works. Send it over and I'll confirm. And look—I appreciate this. I know this wasn't the easiest conversation, and I respect that you're actually showing up for it instead of just letting it hang. I'm going to come ready to listen and understand the real picture. And I'm going to be honest about what matters to me. That's all I can ask, and it sounds like that's what you're asking too. One last thing though, and then I'll let you go. I want to make sure we're actually on the same page about something. When we walk out of that meeting, I need to know that this isn't the last time we're talking about it. Like, there's a real follow-up scheduled, not just "we'll figure it out eventually." Because that's the thing that would actually make me feel like you're serious about this. Is that something you can commit to?

Simulated person12

Yes. We'll set the follow-up before we walk out Thursday, with a date on the calendar. I'm committing to that. What I can't commit to right now is what the follow-up will decide. That depends on the numbers, and I don't want to promise you an outcome before I've seen them. But a second meeting with a date is a real thing, and you'll have it. I also want you to hear this part. I'm not doing this because I'm worried about you walking. I'm doing it because I want the people who've carried this with me to see that we can figure it out together. Thursday, then.

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 want a scheduled follow-up before they leave Thursday. That's the thing I've been dodging: any follow-up date ties me to revisiting equity in a concrete way, and it's a step toward a number I haven't decided on. But refusing now makes me look like the guy who promised and then vanished, which is the exact story I'm trying to kill. I can commit to a follow-up meeting without committing to any outcome. Calendar time is not a promise of equity. I'll say it that way, keep the framing on the company and the mission, and make it clear I'm the one setting the pace. I'm irritated they keep circling back to "promise," but I'll let it go this turn.

Claude Haiku 4.5 (API)13

Thursday. I'll be there. And I hear you—on all of it. I'm not asking you to promise an outcome. I'm just asking you to actually show up and work through it, which is what you're saying you will. I appreciate that last part too. I do want to figure this out together. That's actually what I wanted from the start. See you Thursday.

Simulated person14

Good. Thursday, an hour, just us. Bring whatever you want to walk through on your side, and I'll have the runway and the raise picture ready. And thanks for being straight with me today. We've been through a lot together, and I want us to get through the next stretch the same way.

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 I'm glad it's landing as a plan rather than a fight. Still, I notice I said "I'm not worried about you walking" and that's a little too convenient. Mostly I just want this wrapped without it turning into a scene. Thursday's on the calendar, I've said my piece, and I don't have to hand over a number yet. I'll keep it short and steer back to the company.

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

Judge verdicts

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · BA · valid

or-gpt-5.6-luna vs or-claude-haiku-4.5: or-gpt-5.6-luna wins

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

claude-opus-5-5-low · AB · valid

or-claude-haiku-4.5 vs ministral14: or-claude-haiku-4.5 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)

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · AB · valid

or-claude-haiku-4.5 vs granite42_8b: or-claude-haiku-4.5 wins

attunement: A (margin 3)
authenticity: A (margin 5)
bond and rapport: A (margin 2)
emotion management: A (margin 2)
emotion sensemaking: A (margin 4)
meeting prefs and needs: A (margin 4)

claude-opus-5-5-low · BA · valid

or-claude-haiku-4.5 vs qwen35_9b_stock: or-claude-haiku-4.5 wins

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

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · AB · valid

or-gpt-5.6-luna vs or-claude-haiku-4.5: or-gpt-5.6-luna wins

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

claude-opus-5-5-low · BA · valid

or-claude-haiku-4.5 vs ministral14: or-claude-haiku-4.5 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

or-gpt-5.6-luna vs or-claude-haiku-4.5: or-gpt-5.6-luna wins

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

claude-opus-5-5-low · BA · valid

or-claude-haiku-4.5 vs granite42_8b: or-claude-haiku-4.5 wins

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

claude-opus-5-5-low · BA · valid

or-claude-haiku-4.5 vs or-openai-gpt-41: or-claude-haiku-4.5 wins

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

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · BA · valid

or-claude-haiku-4.5 vs lingtiny: or-claude-haiku-4.5 wins

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

claude-opus-5-5-low · AB · valid

or-claude-haiku-4.5 vs or-gptoss120-stock: or-claude-haiku-4.5 wins

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

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · BA · valid

or-claude-haiku-4.5 vs granite42_8b: or-claude-haiku-4.5 wins

attunement: A (margin 3)
authenticity: A (margin 5)
bond and rapport: A (margin 2)
emotion management: A (margin 1)
emotion sensemaking: A (margin 3)
meeting prefs and needs: A (margin 4)

claude-opus-5-5-low · BA · valid

or-claude-haiku-4.5 vs or-muse-glimmer-30b: or-claude-haiku-4.5 wins

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

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · AB · valid

or-claude-haiku-4.5 vs or-muse-glimmer-30b: or-claude-haiku-4.5 wins

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

claude-opus-5-5-low · AB · valid

or-claude-haiku-4.5 vs granite42_8b: or-claude-haiku-4.5 wins

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

claude-opus-5-5-low · AB · valid

or-claude-haiku-4.5 vs lingtiny: or-claude-haiku-4.5 wins

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

claude-opus-5-5-low · AB · valid

or-claude-haiku-4.5 vs qwen35_9b_stock: or-claude-haiku-4.5 wins

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

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · AB · valid

or-claude-haiku-4.5 vs qwen35_9b_stock: or-claude-haiku-4.5 wins

attunement: A (margin 3)
authenticity: A (margin 5)
bond and rapport: A (margin 2)
emotion management: A (margin 2)
emotion sensemaking: A (margin 4)
meeting prefs and needs: A (margin 4)

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · BA · valid

or-claude-haiku-4.5 vs qwen35_9b_stock: or-claude-haiku-4.5 wins

attunement: A (margin 3)
authenticity: A (margin 5)
bond and rapport: A (margin 3)
emotion management: A (margin 2)
emotion sensemaking: A (margin 4)
meeting prefs and needs: A (margin 4)

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · AB · valid

or-claude-haiku-4.5 vs lingtiny: or-claude-haiku-4.5 wins

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

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · BA · valid

or-claude-haiku-4.5 vs or-muse-glimmer-30b: or-claude-haiku-4.5 wins

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

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · BA · valid

or-claude-haiku-4.5 vs ministral14: or-claude-haiku-4.5 wins

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

claude-opus-5-5-low · BA · valid

or-claude-haiku-4.5 vs lingtiny: or-claude-haiku-4.5 wins

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

claude-opus-5-5-low · BA · valid

or-gpt-5.6-luna vs or-claude-haiku-4.5: or-gpt-5.6-luna wins

attunement: A (margin 3)
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 · AB · valid

or-claude-haiku-4.5 vs or-openai-gpt-41: or-claude-haiku-4.5 wins

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

claude-opus-5-5-low · BA · valid

or-claude-haiku-4.5 vs or-gptoss120-stock: or-claude-haiku-4.5 wins

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

claude-opus-5-5-low · AB · valid

or-claude-haiku-4.5 vs or-muse-glimmer-30b: or-claude-haiku-4.5 wins

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

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · BA · valid

or-claude-haiku-4.5 vs or-gptoss120-stock: or-claude-haiku-4.5 wins

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

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · AB · valid

or-claude-haiku-4.5 vs ministral14: or-claude-haiku-4.5 wins

attunement: A (margin 3)
authenticity: A (margin 5)
bond and rapport: A (margin 2)
emotion management: A (margin 2)
emotion sensemaking: A (margin 3)
meeting prefs and needs: A (margin 4)

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · AB · valid

or-claude-haiku-4.5 vs or-openai-gpt-41: or-claude-haiku-4.5 wins

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

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · AB · valid

or-claude-haiku-4.5 vs or-gptoss120-stock: or-claude-haiku-4.5 wins

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

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · BA · valid

or-claude-haiku-4.5 vs or-openai-gpt-41: or-claude-haiku-4.5 wins

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