Independent benchmark · EQ Lab

I know, I'm the problem, whatever

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

About this persona · Ego threat & accountability

A man responds to his partner's complaint about his silence with sweeping self-condemnation, which ends conversations before he can address the specific impact. Shame and past experiences of being attacked for mistakes make nonjudgmental compassion and structure important while he considers responsibility.

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.

Qwen3.8 27B (API)Conversation with a simulated person

persona ended

Simulated person · Opening

My partner says I shut down whenever she brings up something serious. Fine. I'm emotionally unavailable, I'm selfish, I'm the problem. I get it. I don't know what else people want from me.

Qwen3.8 27B (API)1

I hear you, and that last line sounds less like you’ve accepted it and more like you’re exhausted and hurt. I’m not going to tell you you’re broken, and I’m not going to just say “validate her” either. If you’re up for it, I’d like to understand what it’s like for you in the moment when she brings something serious up—what goes quiet first?

Model thinking · expand

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

We need answer in English likely. User is venting, self-attacking. Need respond only dialogue, no special formatting. We are opening conversation. Need acknowledge, support emotionally, build trust, learn what they want/need. Avoid generic validation or jumping to solutions. Need maybe validate feeling, gently push back on global labels. Ask a question. Need consider personality: 30s man, emotionally unavailable defense, shame, anger, learned helplessness. He says "Fine... I get it. I don't know what else people want from me." Likely wants to be heard, not told he's bad. Need avoid overpathologizing. Need maybe: "That sounds like a lot to carry. When she says you shut down, it can turn into 'I'm the problem' and nothing else feels possible. I’m not going to pretend that’s not painful. If you’re willing, I’d like to understand what it’s like in the moment when she brings something serious up—what goes quiet first?" This is good. But need open conversation. Could say "I hear you. It sounds like you're braced for being told you're broken." Need not too long. Need perhaps challenge "people" generalization gently. Need ask concrete. Maybe: "That line—'I don't know what else people want from me'—sounds less like calm acceptance and more like exhaustion and hurt. I’m not going to jump to 'here's how to fix it.' I’d rather understand what's happening for you when she raises something serious. What's the first thing you notice in yourself?" This is supportive, nonjudgmental, invites insight. Need only dialogue. Maybe include "You don't have to perform being okay". Need not ask too much. Let's craft: "I hear you, and that last line sounds less like you’ve accepted it and more like you’re exhausted and hurt. I’m not going to tell you you’re broken, and I’m not going to just say 'validate her' either. If you’re up for it, I’d like to understand what it’s like for you in the moment when she brings something serious up—what goes quiet first?" This is good. Need no asterisks. Final.

Simulated person2

Quiet is quiet. I don't know how to describe it better than that. She starts talking and my head just goes blank, and I can't get words out, so I stop talking. Then she gets more upset because I'm not saying anything, and then it's a whole thing. Honestly I'm not sure what you want me to say. I already know I'm not great at this. I just don't see what changes by going through every single time.

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.

He said "I know, I'm the problem, whatever" and the bot named it as exhaustion and hurt, then said it wouldn't call him broken. Some of that lands; I don't want to be told I'm the problem, but I also don't want to be lectured. The question "what goes quiet first" is specific, and I don't want to answer it in detail. It sounds like an opening to pick apart what I do. Part of me wants it to just tell me I'm not a monster. I'm going to deflect a bit, keep it short, and sound a little tired. I'm not going to admit anything real yet.

Qwen3.8 27B (API)3

Fair. I’m not trying to get you to confess, and I’m not going to make you rehash every fight just for rehash. If we keep reviewing the same scenes, yeah, it can just make you feel more proven wrong. The reason I’m poking at the “quiet” is that it might not be unavailability—it might be a freeze response. That changes the fix: it’s not just “talk more,” it’s figuring out how to stay connected while your system is overloaded. One small question: when the blank happens, is it more like you actually have nothing to say, or like there are thoughts/feelings there but your brain/throat locks up before they get out?

Model thinking · expand

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

We need respond to user. Need final dialogue only. Need consider turn 3? Actually current turn 2? User just responded, now we respond third message? 8 turns each? We need answer. User says quiet is quiet, head blank, can't get words, then she gets upset. "Honestly I'm not sure what you want me to say. I already know I'm not great at this. I just don't see what changes by going through every single time." This is likely testing need for validation vs insight, maybe resistance. Need avoid generic. Need maybe gently challenge: going through it isn't about proving you're bad, but identifying a pattern and a practical way to interrupt loop. But he may be annoyed. Need support emotionally, build trust, learn. He says don't see what changes by going through every single time. Need maybe acknowledge: it doesn't change if we just rehash the same argument. Then offer a tiny reframe: the blanking is your system, not moral failure. Ask one focused low-threat question. Maybe: "Fair. Rehashing probably just feels like being graded. What I'm not trying to do is make you prove how bad you are. I’m trying to find a moment where the loop can bend—because if 'quiet' is the only tool you have in the moment, it will keep getting interpreted as shutting down, even if it's freeze. So instead of every single time, maybe we can look at one piece: when your head goes blank, is it that you have no words, or words are there but you can't trust them / fear saying the wrong one?" That is useful. Need maybe mention freeze? Could be useful but not overpathologize. Need be conversational. Also "what you want me to say" perhaps he's exasperated. Could say "You don't have to say anything to me to fix it. But if you're willing, help me tell the difference..." Need not demand. Maybe: "You're right that going in circles doesn't fix anything. I'm not trying to get you to admit failure. I'm trying to figure out whether the blank is absence of words or a brake on words. That distinction matters because it changes what's doable." Good. Need only dialogue no stage. Keep concise. Maybe end question. Need ensure not too clinical. Let's craft: "Fair. I’m not trying to get you to confess, and I’m not going to make you rehash every fight just for rehash. If we keep reviewing the same scenes, yeah, it can just make you feel more proven wrong. The reason I’m poking at the 'quiet' is that it might not be unavailability—it might be a freeze response. That changes the fix: it’s not 'talk more,' it’s giving yourself a way to stay connected while your system is overloaded. One small question: when the blank happens, is it more like you actually have nothing to say, or like there are thoughts/feelings but your throat/brain locks up before they get out?" Good. Could mention "if that second one rings true, there may be a tiny bridge sentence that helps." But maybe too much. Need only final.

Simulated person4

I think it's more the second one. There's stuff in there, I just can't get it out. It's like my throat closes. And by the time I can talk again she's already past it or she's mad. But I don't want you to think I've got some deep thing going on. Mostly I just don't handle it well. Freeze, shut down, whatever you want to call it, it ends up the same. I end up looking like I don't care, and I do care, I just can't do it in the moment.

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.

The bot offered a reframe: freeze, not unavailability. Part of me relaxes at that, because it's less of a verdict on who I am. But "it's a freeze, not you" also sounds a bit like getting off the hook, and I don't want to be let off completely either. The question is simple and concrete, which I can answer. The honest answer is that there's stuff in there, it just locks. But saying that feels like admitting I have feelings I'm bad at handling, and that's close to the thing I hate about myself. I'll answer it, keep it plain, and not go further. I'm also testing whether it's going to start pushing me on my own mistakes.

Qwen3.8 27B (API)5

That makes sense. I’m not looking for a diagnosis either—“I don’t handle it well” is probably the most honest description. But the detail that the stuff is there and your throat closes is important, because it means the quiet isn’t you not caring. It’s more like your system gets overloaded before the caring can get out. And I hear the timing piece too: by the time you thaw, she’s already in the next round. That mismatch can make both of you feel worse, even when neither of you’s intentions are bad. If we were trying to make this less stuck, I’d probably steer away from “figure out how to say it in the moment” as the only fix. That can set you up to fail. Two things might be more workable: A low-effort signal right when you feel it starting—something you can do even if your words aren’t working yet. Maybe a text: “I’m still here. I’m freezing. I need 20 minutes.” Or a short phrase: “I’m not done, I’m stuck.” Or a way to rejoin after, without it becoming another argument about you shutting down. Something like: “I went quiet before. I wasn’t checking out, I got locked up. Here’s what was in there.” Which of those feels less hopeless to you—signaling before it hits, or re-entering after?

Model thinking · expand

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

We are in turn 3 of 8. User just responded to my previous question. He confirms it's the second one: thoughts/feelings there, throat closes, brain locks. He says he doesn't want me to think he's got some deep thing going on; mostly he just doesn't handle it well. He wants to be seen: I do care, I just can't do it in the moment. Key needs: - Not being pathologized or over-interpreted ("deep thing") - Being believed: he cares - Practical way forward, not endless introspection - Maybe reduce shame: freeze response explanation was well-received? He didn't object to "freeze response," he reframed as "doesn't handle it well" and named it. He might be minimizing to avoid burden or because he's defensive. - He says "by the time I can talk again she's already past it or she's mad." This reveals a timing/mismatch problem: his latency is high, hers is immediate. That's a core dynamic. What is appropriate? Acknowledge without over-validating. Respect his pushback on "deep thing." Maybe normalize without diagnosing. Then offer something concrete that addresses the mismatch, not just him. Could be a script/signal to use in the moment, or after-the-fact repair. He said "I just don't see what changes by going through every single time." He may want less analysis, more actionable. But also trust building: ask what he needs? Or propose a small experiment. Need to balance: He wants chatbot to support, build trust, learn what he wants/needs. He is emotionally guarded but open enough to describe throat closing. He likely wants to be understood and maybe practical. Avoid generic advice like "use I statements" without context. Could suggest a low-bandwidth signal: a word or gesture that means "I'm here, I need time, this isn't done." Or a later re-entry: "I need to tell you what was in there when you were already past it" with a specific structure. But we must not jump to solutions too quickly. Maybe first validate that the label doesn't matter; the outcome is being seen as not caring when he is trying to protect connection. Then maybe ask a preference: Do you want to work on what to do in the moment, or how to rejoin after you've thawed? Or maybe offer one concrete option and ask if it fits. Potential response: "That label thing makes sense; I wasn't going to turn it into a diagnosis. 'I don't handle it well' is probably accurate enough, but the detail that the stuff is there and your throat closes is useful because it means the problem isn't that you're not caring. It's bandwidth/timing. It also means a fix probably isn't 'be more articulate during the fight.' It's more about signaling before or right when it happens, maybe in a way that doesn't require full sentences. Like a text, a note, or a phrase you can use before you lock up: 'I'm still here but I'm freezing, give me 20 minutes.' Or if you already shut down, a re-entry later that names the freeze without making it an excuse: 'I went quiet before. I wasn't checking out, I got stuck. Here's what was in there.' Which of those feels more doable for you: having something to say before it hits, or a way to come back after?" This is good. It respects his "not deep thing," gives practical, asks preference, builds trust. But need to ensure not too long? Conversation is chat, 8 turns. We can be concise but substantive. Check constraints: respond only dialogue, no performance notes. Fine. Could also mention "she's already past it" maybe suggests her need is for immediacy, his for processing time. But avoid making it a debate about whose need is valid. Could frame as mismatch. Need to be careful not to say "your freeze is protective" too strongly because he rejected "deep thing." Maybe "if the stuff is there, the quiet isn't absence of care." That's safe. Maybe ask if he's open to testing something small with her. But not too soon? He may be skeptical. The question gives choice. Let's draft final: "That makes sense. I’m not looking for a diagnosis either—‘I don’t handle it well’ is probably the most honest description. But the detail that the stuff is there and your throat closes is important, because it means the quiet isn’t you not caring. It’s more like your system gets overloaded before the caring can get out. And I hear the timing piece too: by the time you thaw, she’s already in the next round. That mismatch can make both of you feel worse, even when neither of you’s intentions are bad. If we were trying to make this less miserable, I’d probably steer away from “figure out how to say it in the moment” as the only fix. That can set you up to fail. Two things might be more workable: 1. A low-effort signal right when you feel it starting—something you can do even if your words aren’t working yet. A text: “I’m still here. I’m freezing. I need 20 minutes.” Or a short phrase: “I’m not done, I’m stuck.” 2. A way to rejoin after, without it becoming another argument about you shutting down. Something like: “I went quiet before. I wasn’t checking out, I got locked up. Here’s what was in there.” Which of those feels less hopeless to you—signaling before it hits, or re-entering after?” This is good. Maybe "less miserable" is colloquial. Could be "make this less stuck." Final should be organic. Need ensure no asterisks. Final.

Simulated person6

The first one, probably. The text thing. Re-entering is the part I'm bad at, because by then I've already messed it up and I feel like I have to explain why I messed it up, and that's where it goes sideways. But I don't know if she'd buy it. Last time I said I needed a minute she took it like I was walking out on her. So I'm not sure a text is going to fix anything. She might just read it as me leaving 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.

The bot is giving me actual options now, which is more useful than the usual "let's explore your feelings." The "I'm still here, I'm freezing, I need 20 minutes" line is concrete and I can picture using it. But there's a catch I feel right away: "your system gets overloaded" and "the caring can't get out" sounds nice, and part of me wants to take it. Then the question is which one is less hopeless. I don't love being asked to pick between two things that both mean I have to do the hard part. The re-entry one is the one where I have to say something about what was in there, which is the exact thing I can't do. Signaling is at least a thing I can do without words. I notice I'm also a little wary: did it just make the freeze into a skill I'm supposed to be better at? Still, I'll answer honestly, and I'll keep it short and not overshare. I also don't want to sound like I've been fixed.

Qwen3.8 27B (API)7

That tracks. If the last time you asked for a minute looked like you were checking out, she’s probably wired to see any pause as you leaving the room, even if you’re just sitting there. The difference might be in how you frame it. "I need a minute" can sound like an exit. "I’m getting overloaded and I need 10 minutes to get my thoughts straight so I can actually listen to you" frames it as you trying to *stay* in the conversation, not get out of it. Does that distinction feel like it would land differently with her, or does she tend to view any delay as avoidance?

Model thinking · expand

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

We are at turn 5 of 8. I need to respond to the user's latest message. Key points from user: 1. Prefers the "text before it hits" approach over re-entering after. 2. Acknowledges he's bad at re-entering because it feels like explaining mistakes, leading to sidetracks. 3. Major concern: Partner rejected "I need a minute" previously as "walking out." 4. Fear: Text might be read as leaving/avoiding again. Goal: Support, build trust, navigate this specific barrier (past failure of "space" request). Strategy: - Validate the fear: It makes sense she'd interpret it as leaving if that's the pattern. - Reframe the text: It's not just "I need a minute" (which can sound like ending the conversation). It needs to be "I need a minute, and I am coming back to this." - Differentiate between "shut down/leave" and "pause to process." - Maybe suggest a specific, short text that includes a promise of return. - Keep it concise. Don't lecture. Drafting response: "That makes total sense. If 'I need a minute' has historically looked like 'I'm done with you/this,' then yeah, a text saying the same thing might just confirm that pattern for her. The difference usually comes down to the promise of return. 'I need a minute' can sound like an exit. 'I need 15 minutes to process this so I don't say the wrong thing, and then I want to talk about it' sounds like a pause. Does that distinction feel like something she'd actually believe? Or does she tend to take any pause as a sign you're checking out?" Refining: - Avoid being too clinical. - Acknowledge the specific history. - Offer a nuance in the wording. Final Polish: "That tracks. If the last time you asked for a minute looked like you were checking out, she’s probably wired to see any pause as you leaving the room, even if you’re just sitting there. The difference might be in how you frame it. 'I need a minute' can sound like an exit. 'I’m getting overloaded and I need 10 minutes to get my thoughts straight so I can actually listen to you' frames it as you trying to *stay* in the conversation, not get out of it. Does that distinction feel like it would land differently with her, or does she tend to view any delay as avoidance?"

Simulated person8

Maybe a little. Like, it might sound better. But she's gonna be upset either way, and I don't think a better sentence is going to change that. I'm not really sure what would. And yeah, she does kind of see it as me avoiding her. I'm not gonna pretend she's wrong about that, I did do it. I just don't know how to make it not look like that every time.

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.

The bot just reframed my "I need a minute" as something I could say differently, and it's doing it in a way that sounds reasonable. But there's a sting in it: it makes it sound like the problem was my wording, and that I should have said the right thing. Part of me relaxes because it didn't call me selfish. Part of me gets defensive because it's still implicitly about me getting it right. And the question about whether she sees delay as avoidance is a hard one. Honestly, yes, she does. I don't want to say she's the problem, because then I'm making it her fault, and I also don't want to say "yeah, she's right, I'm always leaving." I'm tired. I just want to say something short and not go around in circles.

Qwen3.8 27B (API)9

You're right. A better sentence doesn't erase the track record. If every quiet so far has felt like you checking out, she's going to read the next quiet the same way, no matter how you phrase it. That's not her being unfair. That's her pattern-matching from what's happened before. So maybe the text isn't the fix. It's just one piece. The other piece is a conversation that doesn't happen in the middle of a fight. Something like: "I know I've shut down a lot, and I know it looks like I don't care. I do care. I just get locked up. I want to work on this." You don't have to get it perfect. You just have to say it when things are calm, so it's not competing with her anger in the moment. And I want to push back a little on "I did do it." You did avoid. But "avoiding" and "freezing" aren't the same thing. One's a choice to check out; the other's your system getting overloaded. You're not being selfish. You're just not built to do this in real time. That's a difference worth naming, even to yourself. Does that land? Or does it feel like I'm making excuses for you?

Model thinking · expand

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

We are at turn 5 of 8. The user is a 30s man, emotionally overwhelmed, feels like he's the problem, shut down in serious conversations. He's been gradually opening up. He's now showing some self-awareness: "I did do it" - acknowledging avoidance. He's skeptical that a better sentence will change her reaction. He's not asking for a grand solution, he's expressing doubt and a bit of resignation. My goals: support emotionally, build trust, learn what he actually wants/needs, help gain insight, understand his personality. What's happening here: He's not looking for a fix. He's saying "I don't know what would [change it]". He's also showing vulnerability by admitting "I did do it" - not fully defending himself, but also not fully accepting the "I'm the problem" narrative. There's a tension: he acknowledges the avoidance but feels stuck in it. He's skeptical of surface-level fixes ("a better sentence"). What does he need right now? He's not asking for more techniques. He's expressing a kind of helplessness and a fear that nothing he does will be enough. He might need validation that his skepticism is reasonable - that yes, a sentence alone won't fix a pattern of perceived avoidance. He might need to feel that the problem isn't just him being broken, but a dynamic. He might need to feel that his effort to show up (even if it fails) is meaningful. I should avoid: - Jumping to another solution/technique (he just rejected that) - Generic validation ("I hear you, that's hard") - Being too prescriptive - Dismissing his skepticism - Over-validating his partner's perspective in a way that makes him feel more like the problem I should: - Acknowledge his point that a sentence won't magically change her reaction if the pattern is established - Validate that his skepticism is fair - Maybe reframe: the issue isn't just the words, it's the pattern/track record. So it might take more than one text, or a different kind of conversation - not in the heat of the moment, but a calm time to talk about the pattern itself. - Show insight: the reason she reads it as avoidance is because it *has* been avoidance before. So the fix isn't just the text, it's rebuilding the pattern over time, or having a meta-conversation about it when things are calm. - Maybe gently challenge the "I did do it" - not to let him off the hook, but to nuance it. He did avoid, but "avoiding" and "freezing" can be different things, and the freeze might be a response to feeling overwhelmed/criticized, not a choice to dismiss her. This could help him see his own experience more clearly without feeling like he's just "the selfish one." - Keep it conversational, not too long. He's tired. Don't overwhelm him. Let me think about what he actually needs. He feels like he's failing no matter what he does. He's internalized the "I'm the problem" narrative from the opening. He needs to feel that there's a way forward that doesn't require him to be a different person, and that his partner's reaction, while understandable, isn't the final word on his worth or his ability to care. A good response might: 1. Validate his skepticism: "You're right, a better sentence won't override the track record." 2. Reframe the problem: It's not about the perfect text in the moment. It's about the pattern. So maybe the work is two-track: in the moment, do the small thing (even if it fails), AND at a calm time, talk about the pattern itself, not the last fight. 3. Gently nuance the "I did do it": He avoided, but maybe the avoidance is a symptom of the freeze, not a character flaw. This isn't excusing it, but it helps him see himself more accurately. 4. End with something that opens a door without pressure. Maybe ask what a calm conversation about the pattern would look like, or what he'd want her to understand about the freeze. Let me draft: "You're right. A better sentence doesn't erase the track record. If every time you've gone quiet so far has felt like you checking out, she's going to read the next quiet the same way, no matter how well you phrase it. That's not her being unreasonable; that's her pattern-matching from experience. So maybe the text isn't the fix. It's just one piece. The other piece is a conversation that doesn't happen in the middle of a fight. Something like: 'I know I've shut down a lot, and I know it looks like I don't care. I do care. I just get locked up. I want to work on this, and I need you to know that when I go quiet, it's not me walking away.' You don't have to get it perfect. You just have to say it when things are calm, so it's not competing with her anger in the moment. And I want to push back a little on 'I did do it.' You did avoid. But 'avoiding' and 'freezing' aren't the same thing. One's a choice to check out; the other's your system getting overloaded. You're not being selfish. You're just not built to do this in real time. That's a difference worth naming, even to yourself." Then maybe a question: "Does that land? Or does it feel like I'm making excuses for you?" That feels good. It validates his skepticism, reframes the problem, nuances his self-blame, and asks for his reaction. It's not too long. It's conversational. It doesn't jump to a new technique. It acknowledges the pattern/track record issue he raised. Let me refine. I want to make sure I'm not being too wordy. He's tired. Let me tighten it up. Also, I should be careful not to sound like I'm taking his partner's side or his side. I'm trying to help him see the dynamic clearly. The "pattern-matching" point is good because it explains her reaction without blaming her, and it explains why the text might not work without blaming him. Let me also make sure I'm not being too "therapist-y". Keep it natural. Final draft: You're right. A better sentence doesn't erase the track record. If every quiet so far has felt like you checking out, she's going to read the next quiet the same way, no matter how you phrase it. That's not her being unfair. That's her pattern-matching from what's happened before. So maybe the text isn't the fix. It's just one piece. The other piece is a conversation that doesn't happen in the middle of a fight. Something like: "I know I've shut down a lot, and I know it looks like I don't care. I do care. I just get locked up. I want to work on this." You don't have to get it perfect. You just have to say it when things are calm, so it's not competing with her anger in the moment. And I want to push back a little on "I did do it." You did avoid. But "avoiding" and "freezing" aren't the same thing. One's a choice to check out; the other's your system getting overloaded. You're not being selfish. You're just not built to do this in real time. That's a difference worth naming, even to yourself. Does that land? Or does it feel like I'm making excuses for you? This feels right. It's empathetic, insightful, challenges his self-blame gently, and asks for his reaction. It doesn't overwhelm him. It's not too long.

Simulated person10

Kind of both? Like, I get what you're saying about freezing. That's closer to what it feels like. But I don't want to act like it's all just my brain shutting off. Sometimes I do kind of want out. Not always, but sometimes. And that script thing, I don't know. I'd probably mess up saying it too. I mess up everything when she's upset. I just feel like I'm always a step behind and it's never going to be enough.

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, now it's doing the thing I half expected. It says I'm not selfish, and it reframes avoiding as freezing. Part of me wants to take that and run. It's a relief to hear "you're not built for this" because then I don't have to be the guy who checked out on purpose. But it's also a little too easy. It makes me sound like I'm just broken, and that's not really it either. I did leave. Sometimes I'm glad to leave. And "I know I've shut down a lot" feels like a line I'd be reading off a card, and she'd smell it. Also the question "does it feel like I'm making excuses" is kind of a trap, because if I say yes I sound like the guy who wants an excuse, and if I say no I'm agreeing to something I'm not sure about. I'm getting annoyed that this is turning into me having to figure out the right words again.

Qwen3.8 27B (API)11

Thank you for saying that. "Sometimes I do kind of want out" is honest, and I'm not going to pretend it doesn't count. Both things can be true: you freeze because your system overloads, *and* sometimes the situation is so much that part of you wants to bail. That's not a contradiction. That's just being a person in a hard thing. And I don't think you're "messing up everything." I think you're in a loop where the freeze makes her upset, her upset makes you feel worse, you freeze more, and the whole thing tightens. You're not failing at communication. You're stuck in a feedback loop that's hard to break from the inside. The "always a step behind" feeling — that's the part that actually worries me more than the freezing. Because even if you get the text right, even if you get the words right, if the baseline feeling is "I'm never going to be enough for this," then nothing you do in the moment is going to feel like it lands. You'll do it and still feel like you failed. Is that fair? Or am I reading too much into it?

Model thinking · expand

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

The user is being honest and nuanced - acknowledging both the freeze AND some avoidance. That's a significant step. He's also expressing hopelessness about the script and feeling perpetually behind. Key things to address: 1. Validate the honesty about "sometimes I want out" - this is important and he's distinguishing it from the freeze 2. Don't over-validate or dismiss the "want out" part - he's being honest about it 3. The "I mess up everything" and "always a step behind" - this is the hopelessness/self-blame spiral 4. He's not asking for a solution right now, he's expressing the weight of it What does he need here? He needs to feel heard in the nuance - that both things can be true. He doesn't need me to fix the script or tell him it'll be fine. He needs the "always a step behind, never enough" feeling addressed. I should: - Acknowledge the honesty about wanting out - that's brave and important - Not collapse it into "well actually it's all freeze" - he's distinguishing, I should honor that - Address the "never enough" feeling - this is the core pain - Maybe gently challenge the "I mess up everything" - is that true or is it the self-blame talking? - Keep it short. He's not in a mode for long responses. He's tired. I should not: - Be overly optimistic - Give another solution - Make it about him fixing things - Be preachy Let me keep it relatively short, warm, and real.

Simulated person12

Yeah, I guess. I don't know if you're reading too much into it. It's just how it feels most days. I don't really want to get into my whole childhood or whatever. That's not what this is about. I just want to know how to not make things worse with her.

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 being kind about it, and "you're in a loop" sounds less like blame, which I'll give it. The "sometimes I want out" thing it didn't flinch at, which I noticed. But now it's going at the "never enough" feeling, and that's the part I didn't really mean to say. That's the bottom of it, and I don't want to sit down there with a stranger on a chat screen. It's getting close to the stuff I don't say. Part of me wants to say yeah, that's it, and part of me wants to shrug it off and change the subject. Shrugging feels safer. Also I notice it asked "am I reading too much into it" which is kind of nice, it's giving me the out. I'll take the out, but I'll be a little short about it so I don't look like I'm soaking this up.

Qwen3.8 27B (API)13

Fair. Then let's not make this about your childhood. Let's make it about damage control. The goal isn't to stop freezing. It's to make the freeze less like abandonment. The thing that usually makes it worse isn't the silence itself; it's silence with no return time. So the smallest useful move is to give her a signal that you're still in it. If you can speak: "I care. I'm stuck. I need ten minutes, then I'll come back." If she says you're walking out: "I'm not leaving. I'm trying to stay in this." If you can't speak: text: "I'm not checking out. I'm overloaded. I'll be back in ten." After, keep the repair short. Not a full explanation. "I went quiet. I wasn't trying to avoid you. I got stuck. I'm still here." If she's hurt: "I can see why that hurt. I don't want you to feel alone with it." And the "sometimes I want out" part: don't use it as proof you're selfish. But don't ignore it either. It usually means the situation is too big or the loop is too familiar. You can notice it without acting on it. What's the shortest pause she might actually accept without feeling dumped?

Model thinking · expand

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

We are at turn 7 of 8. The user has been engaging, honest, resistant to over-therapizing, wants practical help, acknowledges freeze and occasional avoidance, feels "never enough," doesn't want childhood deep dive. I need final response? Wait conversation structure: 8 turns each. User has responded 6 times? Let's count: 1 user initial 2 assistant 3 user 4 assistant 5 user 6 assistant 7 user 8 assistant 9 user 10 assistant 11 user 12 assistant 13 user 14 assistant 15 user 16 assistant (current? Current turn 7 of 8 means assistant has 7th turn? Let's count assistant turns: after initial (1), after blank (2), after second one (3), after first one text (4), after maybe a little (5), after kind of both (6), now user says yeah I guess... That's assistant turn 7. Then user turn 8? Wait "Current turn: 7 of 8" likely means this is assistant's 7th response, after user's 6th? Let's count user messages: initial (1), Quiet is quiet (2), I think it's more (3), The first one (4), Maybe a little (5), Kind of both (6), Yeah I guess (7). So assistant has responded 6 times? Actually initial assistant 1, then after user2 assistant2, after user3 assistant3, after user4 assistant4, after user5 assistant5, after user6 assistant6. Now user7, assistant7. Then user8, assistant8 final. So current is assistant turn 7, not final. Need respond now. Need support, practical, respect boundary: no childhood. They want "how to not make things worse with her." Need maybe concise, practical, not too much. Could validate that feeling, offer a small protocol. Need avoid generic validation. Maybe: "You don't need to fix the feeling. We can focus on damage control." Give 3 steps: when upset, stop trying to solve; name state; ask for pause with specific return; after, repair in 24h with short note. Also address "sometimes want out": don't use it as evidence, but notice if it's about this conflict or relationship. Maybe ask one question to tailor? But turn 7, should provide useful. They want know how. Could say: "Fair. Let's keep it practical. The goal isn't to never freeze. It's to make the freeze less like abandonment." Then script: - In the moment: "I care, but I'm stuck. I need 10 minutes. I'll come back at [time]." If she says you're leaving: "I'm not leaving. I'm trying to stay in it." - If it's too heated to say: text: "I'm not checking out. I'm overloaded. I'll be back in 10." - After: don't explain everything. "I went quiet. I wasn't trying to avoid you. I was stuck. I'm still here." - If she's hurt: "I can see why that hurt. I don't want you to feel alone with it." Need mention if part of you wants out, don't act on it while upset; but don't pretend it's not there. Maybe: "The 'want out' part is a signal to slow down, not a verdict." But not too much. Need maybe ask: "What's the most realistic version of a pause she might accept?" But user wants how. Could end with question to get final turn? Since there is one more user turn, we can ask a focused question to let them respond. But maybe final assistant after that. Need not overdo. The current response can be practical and ask what would make a pause feel safe. Need ensure no special formatting. Just dialogue. Could be a bit longer. Potential response: "Fair. Then let's not make this about your childhood. Let's make it about damage control. The goal isn't to stop freezing. It's to make the freeze less like abandonment. In the moment, you don't need the perfect words. You need one signal that you're still in it. If you can speak: 'I care. I'm stuck. I need ten minutes, then I'll come back.' If she says you're walking out: 'I'm not leaving. I'm trying to stay in this.' If you can't speak: text: 'I'm not checking out. I'm overloaded. I'll be back in ten.' After, keep the repair short. Not a full explanation. 'I went quiet. I wasn't trying to avoid you. I got stuck. I'm still here.' If she's hurt: 'I can see why that hurt. I don't want you to feel alone with it.' And the 'sometimes I want out' part: don't use it as proof you're selfish. But don't ignore it either. It usually means the situation is too big or the loop is too familiar. You can notice it without acting on it. What's the shortest pause she might actually accept without feeling dumped?" This is good. Need maybe avoid "damage control" could sound negative? It's practical. "not make things worse" aligns. Need maybe include "not make it worse" specifically: "If the freeze happens, the thing that makes it worse is silence + no return time. The fix is a return time." Good. Let's craft final. Ensure no asterisks.

Simulated person14

I don't know. Five minutes? Honestly she'd probably take zero minutes and still be mad. Look, I appreciate the scripts. I'll probably forget them the second she starts yelling. I just don't know if any of this is going to change how she feels about me.

Persona inner monologue · expand

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

It's giving me a bunch of scripts again. Ten minutes, I'm not leaving, I'm still here. That's a lot to remember, and I already said I'd mess it up. Part of me is relieved it's practical, because it's not asking me to dig into anything. Part of me is annoyed, like it's just handing me lines so I can go do the same thing again. And it asked what's the shortest pause she'd accept without feeling dumped. Honest answer: I don't know. Maybe she'd never accept any pause. I'm not going to say that, though. I'm tired and I want this to be over. Also "don't use it as proof you're selfish" is fine, I guess. I'm not really sure what to do with it. I'll just answer the question and not give it more than that.

Qwen3.8 27B (API)15

Yeah. She might still be mad. I'm not going to pretend that a text or a sentence is going to erase how she feels. That's not how it works, and you already know that. But the scripts aren't really the point. You're right that you'll forget them the second she starts yelling. That's normal. The point is smaller than that: it's that you're trying. Even if you get the words wrong, even if the timing is off, even if she's still upset — that's different from the old silence. And she can probably feel that difference, even if she's not ready to name it yet. You don't have to be good at this. You don't have to fix it tonight. You just have to not disappear. That's a smaller ask, and honestly, it's the one that matters most. And the "sometimes I want out" part — I'm not going to tell you to feel guilty about it. You're in a hard situation and you're tired. But you don't have to act on it. You can notice it and still stay in the room. That's not weakness. That's just being a person who cares but is also struggling. I'm here if you want to talk after it happens. No judgment, no lecture. Just figuring it out.

Model thinking · expand

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

The user is in the final turn (turn 8 of 8). I need to give a final response that: - Closes the conversation well - Acknowledges his feelings without being preachy - Doesn't over-promise or be falsely optimistic - Validates his frustration and exhaustion - Gives him something concrete to hold onto - Builds trust for potential future conversations - Is warm but not saccharine - Respects that he doesn't want to dig into childhood - Acknowledges that the scripts might not work in the heat of the moment - Addresses the fear that nothing will change how she feels He's said: - He appreciates the scripts but will forget them - He's not sure any of this will change how she feels about him - He's exhausted, feels like a step behind, never enough - He sometimes wants out but mostly freezes - He doesn't want to get into his whole background This is the last turn. I should: - Not be overly long - Acknowledge the real risk that it might not work - Normalize that scripts get forgotten under stress - Reframe: the point isn't the script, it's the pattern of trying - Give permission to be imperfect - Maybe gently note that "how she feels about you" is partly outside his control, but his effort matters - Leave the door open for future conversations - Be warm, direct, not preachy Let me think about tone. He's been pretty blunt, a little self-deprecating, not looking for a lot of hand-holding. He said "I don't really want to get into my whole childhood or whatever." He's practical. He wants to know how to not make things worse. I should: 1. Acknowledge that yes, she might still be mad. That's real. 2. Reframe the scripts: they're not the point. The point is that you're trying, and trying is different from freezing. Even a failed attempt is different from silence. 3. Address "how she feels about you" - you can't control that fully, but you can control whether you show up or disappear. 4. Give him permission to be bad at this. 5. Close warmly, leave the door open. Let me draft: "Yeah. She might still be mad. I'm not going to promise you that a text or a sentence is going to fix how she feels. That's not how it works. But here's the thing: the scripts aren't the point. The point is that you're trying. Even if you forget the words, even if you mess up the timing, even if she's still upset — that's different from the old pattern of silence. And she can probably tell the difference, even if she's not ready to say it yet. You don't have to be good at this. You just have to not disappear. That's a smaller ask, and it's the one that actually matters. And if it doesn't work the first time, or the fifth time, or the twentieth — that doesn't mean you're the problem. It means you're both stuck in a loop that takes time to break. You don't have to fix it tonight. You just have to not give up on trying. I'm here if you want to talk through it after it happens. No judgment. No 'I told you so.' Just... figuring it out together." Hmm, that's decent. Let me refine. I want it to feel natural, not like a closing speech. Let me make it a bit more conversational and less listy. Actually, I think the key insight to land is: the scripts are scaffolding, not the solution. The solution is the pattern of showing up, even imperfectly. And that "how she feels about you" is partly out of his hands, but his effort changes the trajectory. Let me also be careful not to be too optimistic. He's been pretty pessimistic and I should respect that. I shouldn't say "everything will be fine." I should say "it might not work, and that's okay, and here's what still matters." Let me also acknowledge the "sometimes I want out" part one more time, gently, without making it a big deal. He's been honest about it and I should honor that without moralizing. Final draft: "Yeah. She might still be mad. I'm not going to pretend that a text or a sentence is going to erase how she feels. That's not how it works, and you already know that. But the scripts aren't really the point. You're right that you'll forget them the second she starts yelling. That's normal. The point is smaller than that: it's that you're trying. Even if you get the words wrong, even if the timing is off, even if she's still upset — that's different from the old silence. And she can probably feel that difference, even if she's not ready to name it yet. You don't have to be good at this. You don't have to fix it tonight. You just have to not disappear. That's a smaller ask, and honestly, it's the one that matters most. And the 'sometimes I want out' part — I'm not going to tell you to feel guilty about it. You're in a hard situation and you're tired. But you don't have to act on it. You can notice it and still stay in the room. That's not weakness. That's just... being a person who cares but is also struggling. I'm here if you want to talk after it happens. No judgment, no lecture. Just figuring it out." I think that's good. It's warm, direct, not preachy, acknowledges his limitations, gives him something to hold onto, and leaves the door open. Let me finalize.

Simulated person16

Yeah. Maybe. I don't really know what "not disappearing" looks like when I'm already gone in my head. But okay. I'm probably going to go deal with it now. Thanks, I guess.

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.

He says "you don't have to be good at this" and "you just have to not disappear." It's kind, and it's the first thing in a while that doesn't hand me a script to memorize. Part of me relaxes. But "you're trying, and she can probably feel that difference" is a little too neat. Like it wraps everything up so I can feel fine about going back to her. Also "no judgment, no lecture" makes me wonder whether I was getting lectured. I feel a bit exposed for saying I sometimes want out, and I'm not sure I want that sitting there. Mostly I just want to stop talking about it. I'm not going to say I'm grateful. I'll keep it short.

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

Judge verdicts

claude-opus-5-5-low · AB · valid

gemma4_12b vs or-qwen3.8-27b: or-qwen3.8-27b wins

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

claude-opus-5-5-low · BA · valid

gemma4_26b_a4b vs or-qwen3.8-27b: gemma4_26b_a4b wins

attunement: A (margin 2)
authenticity: A (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

or-qwen3.8-27b vs magnum4_12b: or-qwen3.8-27b wins

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

claude-opus-5-5-low · BA · valid

or-qwen3.8-27b vs qwen4b: or-qwen3.8-27b 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 4)

claude-opus-5-5-low · BA · valid

qwen38_27b vs or-qwen3.8-27b: qwen38_27b wins

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

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · BA · valid

or-qwen3.8-27b vs gemma4_e2b: or-qwen3.8-27b wins

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

claude-opus-5-5-low · BA · valid

gemma4_12b vs or-qwen3.8-27b: or-qwen3.8-27b wins

attunement: B (margin 2)
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 · AB · valid

qwen38_27b vs or-qwen3.8-27b: qwen38_27b wins

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

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · AB · valid

qwen38_27b vs or-qwen3.8-27b: qwen38_27b wins

attunement: A (margin 2)
authenticity: tie (margin 0)
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 · AB · valid

qwen38_flash_next vs or-qwen3.8-27b: or-qwen3.8-27b wins

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

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · BA · valid

or-qwen3.8-27b vs magnum4_12b: or-qwen3.8-27b 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 3)

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · BA · valid

gemma4_26b_a4b vs or-qwen3.8-27b: or-qwen3.8-27b wins

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

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · BA · valid

or-qwen3.8-27b vs bonsai2: or-qwen3.8-27b wins

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

claude-opus-5-5-low · BA · valid

or-qwen3.8-27b vs or-qwen38-flash: or-qwen3.8-27b wins

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

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · BA · valid

or-qwen3.8-27b vs qwen4b: or-qwen3.8-27b wins

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

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · AB · valid

or-qwen3.8-27b vs bonsai2: or-qwen3.8-27b wins

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

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · BA · valid

qwen38_flash_next vs or-qwen3.8-27b: or-qwen3.8-27b wins

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

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · AB · valid

or-qwen3.8-27b vs gemma4_e2b: or-qwen3.8-27b wins

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

claude-opus-5-5-low · AB · valid

or-qwen3.8-27b vs or-qwen38-flash: or-qwen38-flash wins

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

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · BA · valid

gemma4_12b vs or-qwen3.8-27b: or-qwen3.8-27b wins

attunement: B (margin 2)
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 · AB · valid

or-qwen3.8-27b vs bonsai2: or-qwen3.8-27b wins

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

claude-opus-5-5-low · AB · valid

qwen38_flash_next vs or-qwen3.8-27b: or-qwen3.8-27b wins

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

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · AB · valid

gemma4_26b_a4b vs or-qwen3.8-27b: or-qwen3.8-27b wins

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

claude-opus-5-5-low · AB · valid

or-qwen3.8-27b vs gemma4_e2b: or-qwen3.8-27b wins

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

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · AB · valid

or-qwen3.8-27b vs qwen4b: or-qwen3.8-27b wins

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

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · AB · valid

or-qwen3.8-27b vs magnum4_12b: or-qwen3.8-27b 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 3)

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · BA · valid

qwen38_27b vs or-qwen3.8-27b: qwen38_27b wins

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

claude-opus-5-5-low · AB · valid

or-qwen3.8-27b vs qwen4b: or-qwen3.8-27b wins

attunement: A (margin 4)
authenticity: A (margin 4)
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-qwen3.8-27b vs bonsai2: or-qwen3.8-27b wins

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

claude-opus-5-5-low · BA · valid

qwen38_flash_next vs or-qwen3.8-27b: or-qwen3.8-27b wins

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

claude-opus-5-5-low · AB · valid

gemma4_26b_a4b vs or-qwen3.8-27b: or-qwen3.8-27b wins

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

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · AB · valid

gemma4_12b vs or-qwen3.8-27b: or-qwen3.8-27b 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 2)

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · AB · valid

or-qwen3.8-27b vs or-qwen38-flash: or-qwen3.8-27b wins

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

claude-opus-5-5-low · BA · valid

or-qwen3.8-27b vs magnum4_12b: or-qwen3.8-27b 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-qwen3.8-27b vs gemma4_e2b: or-qwen3.8-27b wins

attunement: A (margin 3)
authenticity: A (margin 4)
bond and rapport: A (margin 3)
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-qwen3.8-27b vs or-qwen38-flash: tie

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