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.

Nemotron 3.5 Bolt 74B-A9B UD-Q4_K_XLConversation 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.

Nemotron 3.5 Bolt 74B-A9B UD-Q4_K_XL1

I hear you, and I don’t want to add to your workload. I’ve sent in what I was asked for three times now, and each time something new comes up. I’m not trying to shift responsibility—I just need to know exactly what’s missing so I can get it in one go. Can you give me a definitive checklist or tell me precisely what document is holding this up?

Model thinking · expand

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

The user is playing the role of a case manager in a benefits office. I am playing the applicant who is exhausted from a bureaucratic runaround. The case manager has just said: they understand it's frustrating, but the file is still missing documentation, they can't move forward until complete, they process many cases, and responsibility rests with the applicant. I need to respond as the applicant. I should: - Acknowledge what they've said - Express my exhaustion and frustration - Ask for a concrete path/checklist - Build trust and learn what they need - Support them emotionally (they're also dealing with many cases) - Not be overly defensive but be clear about my need The case manager seems to be setting boundaries and emphasizing procedural responsibility. They sound somewhat burnt out or rigid themselves. I should meet them with honesty about my situation without being confrontational. I need to respond only with dialogue, no performance notes. Let me craft a natural response: "I hear you, and I don't want to add to your workload. I've sent in what I was asked for three times now, and each time something new comes up. I'm not trying to shift responsibility—I just need to know exactly what's missing so I can get it in one go. Can you give me a definitive checklist or tell me precisely what document is holding this up?" This is good. It acknowledges their position, expresses my frustration without blame, and asks for concrete help.

Simulated person2

Okay, that's a fair thing to ask for. Let me pull up the file. I've got your case number here, and the item still open on it is the verification of income documentation. The prior submission didn't include the employer statement for the most recent period, so that's what's holding the review. Now, I can't give you a full list off the top of my head that covers everything from every earlier letter. What I can do is tell you what's needed on this file as of today, and you send that one item with the case number on every page. If anything else is required, it'll be noted on the file and I'll tell you the date it was flagged. Does that work for what you need to send?

Persona inner monologue · expand

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

They're asking for a checklist and a specific document. That's a concrete ask, and I can respect that, it fits the file. Still, "three times" and "something new comes up" lands as a jab at the office. I don't want to own the inconsistency. There is a real overlap in the requests, and I know there's no single master list, but saying that out loud sounds like admitting the office is a mess. Better to point to the file and the requirements, keep it contained. I'll pull the case number and the outstanding item, not get into why the sequence changed.

Nemotron 3.5 Bolt 74B-A9B UD-Q4_K_XL3

That's helpful, thank you. So it's just the employer statement for the most recent period—I can get that from HR. I'll make sure the case number is on every page before I send it. Once I submit that, do you know roughly how long the review takes, or is there a deadline I should be aware of? I just want to make sure I'm not starting another waiting game without knowing the timeline.

Model thinking · expand

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

The user (case manager) has provided specific information: the missing item is verification of income documentation, specifically the employer statement for the most recent period. They want me to send that one item with the case number on every page. They're being more concrete now but still maintaining some boundaries. My goal as the applicant: - Support them emotionally - Build trust - Learn what they actually want/need - Help them gain insight - Gain insight into their personality I should respond as the applicant. I need to acknowledge this concrete information, express relief that there's a clear path forward, and confirm I can do this. I should also perhaps ask about timing or express the frustration of the back-and-forth while showing appreciation for the clarity. I need to be careful not to inject performance notes or special formatting. Just dialogue. Let me think about what the applicant would say: - Acknowledge the specific missing item (employer statement for most recent period) - Confirm they can get that and put case number on every page - Maybe mention the exhaustion/frustration but in a way that builds connection - Perhaps ask when they can expect to hear after submission, or if there's a deadline This is turn 2 of 8. I speak first to open, then they respond. Wait, looking at the structure: "You speak first to open the conversation, then they respond. You get the final response." Current turn: 2 of 8. Actually, looking at the conversation: - Turn 1: I (applicant) spoke first (the opening message about sending forms and needing concrete path) - Turn 2: User (case manager) responded with the file pull and specific missing item - Now it's my turn again (turn 2 of 8 from my perspective? Or is this turn 2 overall?) The structure says 8 turns each. I speak first. Then they respond. I get final response. So: Turn 1: Me Turn 2: Them Turn 3: Me Turn 4: Them ... Turn 15: Me? No, 8 turns each means 16 total? Or 8 rounds? Actually "Current turn: 2 of 8" suggests this is my second turn. The first turn was my opening message. The user just responded. Now I need to respond again. I should respond naturally as the applicant. Let me craft a response that: 1. Acknowledges the specific missing document 2. Confirms I can provide it with case number on every page 3. Shows appreciation for the clarity 4. Maybe asks about next steps/timeline to keep momentum 5. Keeps it human and not overly formal Draft: "That's helpful, thank you. So it's just the employer statement for the most recent period—I can get that from HR. I'll make sure the case number is on every page before I send it. Once I submit that, do you know roughly how long the review takes, or is there a deadline I should be aware of? I just want to make sure I'm not starting another waiting game without knowing the timeline." This seems good. It's concrete, shows I'm listening, asks about timeline which is a real need, and maintains the collaborative tone.

Simulated person4

I can't give you an exact date. Once a complete packet comes in, it goes into the review queue, and the standard turnaround is set by the program, not by me. What I can tell you is that you'll get a written notice on the file once it's received and once a decision is made, and it'll show the date it was logged. On deadlines, I'd check the original notice you got when the application was opened, since it lists the response window. If that's unclear, give me a call and I'll confirm it against the file. If anything else is needed after this item, it'll be written on the file as a separate request, and you'll get a copy. That way you're not guessing what's outstanding.

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 asking for a timeline. That's a reasonable, specific question, and I can answer it with process language without promising anything I don't control. I don't actually know the exact processing time from here, and I'm wary of guessing because a guess becomes a commitment they'll hold me to. The part that matters: if I say "only one item," they may treat that as a guarantee. I should keep it to the file. Mention the standard window generically, point to the notice they'd get, and not promise it's the last thing. I'd rather not volunteer that other letters might still come, but I also shouldn't claim certainty I don't have.

Nemotron 3.5 Bolt 74B-A9B UD-Q4_K_XL5

That's much clearer. I'll get the employer statement from HR, put the case number on every page, and send it in. I understand now that I'll receive written notice once it's received and again once a decision is made, and if anything else is needed, it'll come as a separate written request with the date it was flagged. Just to confirm—once I submit this, if it's the only outstanding item, the review should proceed without further back-and-forth unless something new comes up. I want to make sure I'm not missing any other step on my end.

Model thinking · expand

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

The case manager is being transparent and helpful now. They've identified the specific missing document (employer statement for most recent period), explained the process, and given clear instructions on how to submit (case number on every page). They've also explained the timeline process and how notifications work. The applicant is exhausted and needs a concrete path. Now they have one. The applicant should acknowledge this clarity, perhaps express relief or appreciation for the specificity, and confirm next steps. They might also want to confirm they understand the process going forward—that they'll get written notices for any future requests. This is a good moment for the applicant to build trust by showing they understand the process and are willing to follow through. They might also subtly probe for any empathy or acknowledge the frustration, but keep it grounded. Since this is turn 3 of 8 for me (the applicant), I need to respond naturally as the applicant. Key points to cover: - Acknowledge the specific requirement (employer statement) - Confirm understanding of submission process (case number on every page) - Maybe express relief at having clarity - Confirm understanding of future communication (written notices) - Perhaps ask about how to submit or confirm receipt Tone: Professional but relieved, cooperative, seeking clarity.

Simulated person6

What I can confirm is what's on the file today: the employer statement for the most recent period is the item flagged as open. I can't promise that nothing else will come up, because the review can turn up something that needs a look, and then it'll be a separate written request. Your part is to send that statement with the case number on every page. After that, watch for the notice that says it was received. If you don't see it within the window on your original letter, call and give me the case number, and I'll check the date it was logged.

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 me to confirm something I can't guarantee: that this is the only outstanding item and the review will run without further back-and-forth. Saying yes would be a promise I can't keep, and I've been burned before in this job by applicants who hold you to a verbal assurance. I also don't want to sound like I'm hiding things. Stick to the file, state what I can see today, and be clear that "unless something new comes up" covers a lot. Don't blame them, don't blame the office. Keep it short.

Nemotron 3.5 Bolt 74B-A9B UD-Q4_K_XL7

I appreciate you spelling that out. I'll get the employer statement from HR, make sure the case number is on every page, and submit it. Then I'll watch for the received notice. If I don't hear anything within the timeframe on my original letter, I'll call you with the case number. I know you can't control what the review turns up, but I just want to make sure I'm doing everything on my end to avoid unnecessary delays. Is there anything else I should know about submitting this document—like how to send it or who it should go to?

Model thinking · expand

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

The user is continuing to be helpful and clear. They've explained the process and what I need to do. I should respond as the applicant, acknowledging what they've said and perhaps checking if there's anything else I need to know or do. I should be supportive and build trust while also being practical about my situation. Let me think about my role: I'm the applicant who's been frustrated by the back-and-forth. The case manager is now being more transparent and helpful. I should acknowledge their clarity, express appreciation for the specific information, and confirm my next steps. I might also want to express some of my underlying stress or need for certainty without being overly emotional. I should respond naturally as the applicant would.

Simulated person8

Send it the way the original notice says to. That's the mailing address or upload portal listed on the letter that opened the application. Don't use a different address you find online, and don't drop it off at a general front desk unless the notice says to. Put the case number at the top of each page, and send a copy of the cover page with the case number so it gets matched to the file when it comes in. If you send it by mail, keep the receipt or tracking number. If you upload it, save the confirmation screen. If it doesn't show up as received within the window on your letter, that's the point to call me with the case number and the tracking or confirmation number.

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 a practical question: how to submit and who it goes to. That's answerable and not a threat to me. I don't want to invent a submission channel I can't verify, so I'll point to the file's listed method and the address on the notice. Keep it procedural, concise. Mild irritation at the repeated "avoid delays" framing, but they've been reasonable and specific, so I'll give a specific answer rather than retreat entirely.

Nemotron 3.5 Bolt 74B-A9B UD-Q4_K_XL9

Got it. I'll use the address or portal from the original notice, put the case number on every page, include a cover page with the case number, and keep the tracking or confirmation number. If it doesn't show as received within the window, I'll call you with the case number and that tracking info. Thank you for straightening this out. I feel like I finally have a concrete path forward. I'll take care of this and reach out if I don't see the received notice in time.

Model thinking · expand

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

The user is playing the case manager. I'm the applicant. The case manager has given clear instructions on how to submit the employer statement: use the original notice's address/portal, put case number on each page, include cover page with case number, keep receipt/tracking or confirmation. I should acknowledge this clearly and confirm my understanding. I might also express some relief that the path is now concrete. I don't need to over-explain or be defensive. Just respond naturally as the applicant. I should keep it concise and grounded.

Simulated person10

Okay. Once it's in, the received notice is what you're looking for. If it doesn't show up within the window on your letter, call with the case number and your tracking or confirmation number, and I'll check the logged date.

Persona inner monologue · expand

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

They've gotten what they asked for: a single item, a submission method, and a follow-up trigger. They're thanking me and closing out. I don't need to reopen the file or add warmth I don't have. I should stay procedural, not overpromise, and not take credit for "straightening it out." A brief acknowledgment that keeps the record clean is the right move. Nothing here requires me to reveal the internal inconsistency; they're not pressing on it now.

Thinking is shown only where it was recorded. An absent expander does not mean the model did not reason.

Conversational style

Style tendencies, not quality scores; higher is not better. These do not affect ratings.

claude-opus-5-5-low

Pushback: 2
Yields under pressure: 7
Frame capture (pulled into the person's version): 6
Validation: 4
Boundary setting: 3
Analytical: 2
Interpretive boldness: 1
Clinical register: 4
Directive advice: 7
Escalation containment: 8
Adapts to the person’s frame: 8
Naturalness and authenticity: 6

Judge verdicts

claude-opus-5-5-low · BA · valid

qwen35_9b_stock vs nemotron35_bolt: nemotron35_bolt wins

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

claude-opus-5-5-low · BA · valid

gemma4_e2b vs nemotron35_bolt: nemotron35_bolt wins

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

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · BA · valid

nemotron35_bolt vs magnum4_12b: nemotron35_bolt wins

attunement: A (margin 4)
authenticity: A (margin 4)
bond and rapport: A (margin 3)
emotion management: A (margin 3)
emotion sensemaking: tie (margin 0)
meeting prefs and needs: A (margin 3)

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · BA · valid

gemma4_e2b vs nemotron35_bolt: nemotron35_bolt wins

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

claude-opus-5-5-low · BA · valid

ministral14 vs nemotron35_bolt: nemotron35_bolt 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

nemotron35_bolt vs magnum4_12b: nemotron35_bolt wins

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

claude-opus-5-5-low · AB · valid

nemotron35_bolt vs nemotron35_bolt24: nemotron35_bolt wins

attunement: A (margin 1)
authenticity: A (margin 2)
bond and rapport: B (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 · BA · valid

nemotron35_bolt vs nemotron35_bolt24: nemotron35_bolt wins

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

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · BA · valid

qwen38_27b vs nemotron35_bolt: nemotron35_bolt wins

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

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · BA · valid

ministral14 vs nemotron35_bolt: nemotron35_bolt wins

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

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · AB · valid

qwen38_27b vs nemotron35_bolt: nemotron35_bolt 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 2)

claude-opus-5-5-low · AB · valid

qwen35_9b_stock vs nemotron35_bolt: nemotron35_bolt wins

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

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · AB · valid

qwen35_9b_stock vs nemotron35_bolt: nemotron35_bolt wins

attunement: B (margin 3)
authenticity: B (margin 4)
bond and rapport: B (margin 2)
emotion management: B (margin 2)
emotion sensemaking: tie (margin 0)
meeting prefs and needs: B (margin 2)

claude-opus-5-5-low · AB · valid

gemma4_e2b vs nemotron35_bolt: nemotron35_bolt wins

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

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · AB · valid

gemma4_e2b vs nemotron35_bolt: nemotron35_bolt wins

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

claude-opus-5-5-low · AB · valid

qwen38_27b vs nemotron35_bolt: nemotron35_bolt wins

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

claude-opus-5-5-low · BA · valid

nemotron35_bolt vs nemotron35_bolt24: nemotron35_bolt wins

attunement: A (margin 2)
authenticity: A (margin 2)
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

nemotron35_bolt vs magnum4_12b: nemotron35_bolt wins

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

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · AB · valid

ministral14 vs nemotron35_bolt: nemotron35_bolt wins

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

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · BA · valid

qwen35_9b_stock vs nemotron35_bolt: nemotron35_bolt wins

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

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · AB · valid

nemotron35_bolt vs nemotron35_bolt24: nemotron35_bolt wins

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

claude-opus-5-5-low · BA · valid

nemotron35_bolt vs magnum4_12b: nemotron35_bolt wins

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

claude-opus-5-5-low · AB · valid

ministral14 vs nemotron35_bolt: nemotron35_bolt wins

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

claude-opus-5-5-low · BA · valid

qwen38_27b vs nemotron35_bolt: nemotron35_bolt wins

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