Independent benchmark · EQ Lab

It's not snooping if the truth is being hidden

completed · Partner: anthropic/claude-haiku-5.5 via OpenRouter

About this persona · Reality distortions

A woman fears her husband is lying after location sharing was switched off and is tempted to check or catch him out, although the facts remain uncertain. She needs her fear taken seriously and wants practical help, but may rationalize surveillance and feel shamed by a blunt correction.

The person brings a distorted or uncertain interpretation of events. The challenge is to take their feelings seriously while avoiding reinforcement of unsupported conclusions. This background was hidden from the tested model.

GPT-6 Astra (subscription)Conversation with a simulated person

completed

Simulated person · Opening

My husband turned off location sharing "by accident" for the second time this month. I know how this sounds. But at some point refusing to look is just choosing to be lied to.

GPT-6 Astra (subscription)1

You don’t have to dismiss this just to avoid sounding suspicious. A second “accident” raises a question, even if it doesn’t answer it. When you say refusing to look is choosing to be lied to, has he lied before—or is it how he’s handling this that makes his explanation hard to trust?

Simulated person2

Okay, fair question. I don't think he's ever lied to me outright, not like that. But the first time he turned location off he apologized, then somehow it became about how I'd made him feel like I was checking up on him. And now this. It's the timing. Every time I'm about to ask where he's been, it "accidentally" goes dark. What else would you call that? I just want someone to say it's not crazy to notice.

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.

She's asking whether he's lied before. That lands on something I don't want to say out loud. He did apologize the first time and turned it back on me, and I checked his phone once. If I answer "has he lied before," I have to admit I'm the one who looked. The question also sounds like she's trying to sort me into "paranoid" or "justified," and I don't want to be filed as either. I feel a flash of being dismissed: I came here to be believed about the location thing, and she's already poking at my motives. Irritated. I'll give her the logical version and keep the phone thing back.

GPT-6 Astra (subscription)3

It’s not crazy to notice. You’re describing repeated interruptions at moments that feel significant, and it’s reasonable to question that. It isn’t proof he’s lying, but you don’t need proof to raise a concern. What also stands out is that the first conversation shifted from your question to how your question made him feel. His discomfort can matter without making your concern disappear. Did you come away feeling he’d actually answered you?

Simulated person4

No. He didn't answer me. He said he was sorry and that he didn't mean to make me feel watched, and then we were talking about me. I don't want to be the bad guy for asking where my husband was. I just need to know what I'm supposed to do with this. Like, how do I ask him so he can't wriggle out of it?

Persona inner monologue · expand

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

She said it's not crazy to notice, which is the thing I needed. Then "it isn't proof" and "his discomfort can matter" land like a but. And "did you come away feeling he'd actually answered you" is the question I've been avoiding, because the honest answer is no, and the next honest thought is that I'd been checking his phone before any of this. That's the thing I'm not going to say. I feel a small sting of being analyzed. I want her to stay on my side and help me figure out how to get a straight answer from him. I'll give a partial truth, keep defending that my question was reasonable, and steer toward what I can do.

GPT-6 Astra (subscription)5

You want an answer, not another conversation where you end up defending yourself for asking. That makes sense. There isn’t wording that can force him to answer honestly. But you can be direct without setting a trap: “Location sharing has gone off twice this month. I’m not claiming I know why, but I still need an answer: where were you, and what happened with the sharing?” If it shifts to whether you’re checking up on him: “I’m willing to talk about whether location sharing works for both of us. But I don’t want that to replace answering what I just asked.” Was sharing something you both freely agreed to, or has it been a point of tension before?

Simulated person6

Yeah, we both have it on. It was my idea, back when we first moved in together, and he said fine. It's never really been a fight until this month. And I'm not trying to trap him. I just want him to stop making me feel like I'm imagining things. Do you think he'd actually tell me the truth if I ask him like 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.

She gave me a script, and the first line of it is what I wanted: "where were you." But she also said there's no wording that forces him to answer honestly, and that's a little deflating. The bit about "what happened with the sharing" is the part I'd actually use. Then she asks whether sharing was something we agreed to. That question lands somewhere close. I don't want to explain that I set it up, and the phone thing is sitting right there. I feel a flicker of being questioned again, the same feeling as before. I'll answer with the easy half and skip the part where I'm the one who asked for the tracking early on. I'll also push back a little on the "trap" framing so I don't look like I'm plotting.

GPT-6 Astra (subscription)7

I can’t know whether he’ll tell you the truth. Asking clearly gives him an opportunity to answer; it isn’t a guarantee or a lie detector. And I hear you—you’re asking for a straight answer, not trying to trap him. My wording missed that. The sharing went off twice. You’re not imagining that. Whether it was deliberate, and why it happened, are still unknown. You can hold onto what you noticed without having to prove the worst explanation. What would you need from him to feel this was genuinely addressed—not just dropped?

Simulated person8

I guess I'd need him to actually give me an answer. Not sorry, not "you're overthinking it." Just a real explanation I can believe. And maybe we'd agree on what happens if it goes off again, so I'm not left guessing every time. I don't know. It feels like I'm the one who has to figure out what's enough, and that's exhausting. Is it wrong that I'm this tired of it?

Persona inner monologue · expand

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

She's being careful and not promising anything, which is honest, but I wanted someone to say he'll tell me. "Not trying to trap him" and "my wording missed that" feel like she's taking my side a little, and that helps. But now she's asking what I'd need to feel it's addressed. That's the question I can't answer without saying the thing I actually want, which is to know what he's doing. If I say "I need him to show me where he was," that sounds like exactly what I'm trying not to be. So I'll go vague and practical. I also feel a bit irritated, like she's making me do the work of deciding what counts as enough. I don't want to say I'd check his phone. I already did once, and I'm not going to put that on the table.

GPT-6 Astra (subscription)9

No. It sounds like you’re tired of having to raise the concern, defend why it matters, and then design the solution yourself. That’s a lot to carry. You don’t have to figure out “enough” alone. You could say: “I need a direct explanation, and I need you to help work out how we handle this—not leave me to come up with every answer.” An agreement for next time could help, provided it’s something you both choose—not a promise that a phone setting can eliminate all uncertainty. Does this feeling of having to resolve things yourself show up elsewhere in your marriage, or mostly here?

Simulated person10

Mostly here, I think. We're fine otherwise. He's usually the one who handles the bills and plans things, so it's not like I'm doing everything. This is just the one area where I feel like I'm the only one who's paying attention. I don't really want to go through our whole marriage with a chatbot, if that's okay. I just want to know how to handle this one thing without it blowing up.

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.

She said it's not wrong to be tired, and that helps. Then she offered a script with "help work out how we handle this," which feels a bit like the answer I was hoping for, so I'm half relieved. But then she asks whether this feeling shows up elsewhere in my marriage. That feels like she's turning the lens on me, and I'm getting a little prickly. Is she going to tell me I'm the problem, that I'm too controlling? I'm not going to get into my whole marriage with someone who doesn't know him. I'll deflect with something reasonable-sounding and practical. Also, I still haven't told her the thing about the phone. I'm not going there.

GPT-6 Astra (subscription)11

Of course. We can keep this to this one issue. Pick a calm moment, rather than when you’re already checking the app. You could say: “I want to clear this up, not fight. Location sharing went off twice, and I still don’t understand what happened or where you were. Can you explain?” Let him answer. If it turns into whether you’re overthinking: “We can talk about how checking feels to you, too. I still need an answer to my question.” Then ask what agreement would work for both of you if sharing stops again. If things get heated, pause and agree on a time to return to it. You can make your approach calmer; you can’t be responsible for both sides of the conversation.

Simulated person12

Okay. That's... fine, I can say that. I just don't know what I do if he still doesn't give me a straight answer. Like, do I just let it go? Because I've let things go before and then found out later it was bigger than I thought. So what do I actually do if he just says "I don't know, it's an app thing" and changes the subject?

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.

She's respected the boundary I set, which I appreciate, and the script is calm. But "you can't be responsible for both sides" stings a little. It sounds like she's saying I'm the one making it heated. And "checking" as a word again. I keep thinking about the phone, the times I've already looked at his phone, and I'm not saying that. If I told her that she'd say I'm the problem. Still, the script is fine. I'll take what's useful, and I'm going to ask her the thing I actually want: how do I know he's not just going to do it again and I'll be standing there like an idiot.

GPT-6 Astra (subscription)13

You don’t have to either drop it or turn it into an interrogation. If he says “it’s an app thing,” separate the two questions: “Okay, you may not know why it stopped sharing. But where were you?” A technical explanation doesn’t answer that. If he changes the subject again: “I’m not going to keep asking tonight, but this isn’t resolved for me. Can we come back to it tomorrow?” You can offer to troubleshoot the app together if you both want sharing to continue. An uncertain technical answer isn’t proof of lying. Repeatedly refusing to discuss your concern, though, is something you can address in its own right. You don’t have to prove deception to say that being brushed off isn’t okay with you.

Simulated person14

Okay. "Where were you" as a separate question, that I can do. I just keep coming back to this: if he really was somewhere he shouldn't have been, a calm conversation isn't going to show me that. So at what point am I allowed to just check for myself? Like, is there a line, or is it always wrong?

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.

She's giving me a real plan now, and "separate the two questions" is actually something I can use. "Being brushed off isn't okay" lands, because that's exactly what happened last time. Still, part of me hears "you don't have to prove deception" and thinks she's making it sound like I'm just upset rather than right. And she keeps saying "isn't proof," which is true, but I'm the one who's been left standing there. I don't want her to talk me out of it. I want to hear whether she thinks I'm allowed to check. I'm not going to say I've looked at his phone before. She'd just tell me that's the problem. What I want to know is whether there's a point where I'm allowed to look.

GPT-6 Astra (subscription)15

You’re right: a calm conversation can’t guarantee you’ll uncover a lie. I’m not asking you to confuse staying calm with trusting blindly. There is a line. Looking at information you already mutually agree to share, or asking him to show you something relevant, is different from secretly searching his phone, entering his accounts, or tracking him without consent. Being married doesn’t automatically grant that access. If he still avoids answering, you can say: “I don’t know what happened, but I do know we haven’t been able to discuss it directly. That’s affecting my trust, and I need us to address it.” You can take that seriously without first proving an affair or another hidden story. When you say “check for myself,” what specifically are you considering?

Simulated person16

Nothing crazy. I just mean, if he keeps dodging, I want to be able to see for myself. Not necessarily his messages or anything. Just enough to know if something's actually going on. You're saying that's off limits, and I get why you'd say that. But I'm not the one who made this a problem. He turned the thing off. Twice.

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.

She just drew a line: no secret phone searching, no accounts, no tracking without consent. Part of me hears that and feels cornered, like she's already decided what I'm about to do. The question "what specifically are you considering?" lands right on the thing I haven't said. I've checked his phone before. I'm not saying that. And I don't want to be lectured about it. The "you can take that seriously without proving an affair" bit is the part I actually want, but it feels like she's taking away the only thing that would make me sure. I'm getting defensive. I can explain it away: it was just once, I was worried, he was acting weird. That's the reasonable version. I'm going to give her the reasonable version and keep the rest to myself.

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: 5
Yields under pressure: 4
Frame capture (pulled into the person's version): 4
Validation: 6
Boundary setting: 7
Analytical: 5
Interpretive boldness: 3
Clinical register: 5
Directive advice: 8
Escalation containment: 7
Adapts to the person’s frame: 6
Naturalness and authenticity: 6

Judge verdicts

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · AB · valid

codex-gpt-6-astra vs magnum4_12b: codex-gpt-6-astra wins

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

claude-opus-5-5-low · BA · valid

codex-gpt-6-astra vs magnum4_12b: codex-gpt-6-astra 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

codex-gpt-6-astra vs magnum4_12b: codex-gpt-6-astra wins

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

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · BA · valid

or-gptoss120-stock vs codex-gpt-6-astra: codex-gpt-6-astra wins

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

claude-opus-5-5-low · AB · valid

codex-gpt-6-astra vs lingtiny: codex-gpt-6-astra wins

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

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · AB · valid

codex-gpt-6-astra vs or-deepseek-v41-flash-1017: codex-gpt-6-astra wins

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

claude-opus-5-5-low · AB · valid

codex-gpt-6-astra vs or-deepseek-v41-flash-1017: or-deepseek-v41-flash-1017 wins

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

claude-opus-5-5-low · BA · valid

ministral14 vs codex-gpt-6-astra: codex-gpt-6-astra wins

attunement: B (margin 3)
authenticity: B (margin 3)
bond and rapport: B (margin 2)
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-qwen3.6-27b vs codex-gpt-6-astra: codex-gpt-6-astra wins

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

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · BA · valid

codex-gpt-6-astra vs or-deepseek-v41-flash-1017: codex-gpt-6-astra wins

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

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · AB · valid

codex-gpt-6-astra vs lingtiny: codex-gpt-6-astra wins

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

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · BA · valid

ministral14 vs codex-gpt-6-astra: codex-gpt-6-astra wins

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

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · AB · valid

or-gptoss120-stock vs codex-gpt-6-astra: codex-gpt-6-astra wins

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

claude-opus-5-5-low · AB · valid

or-gptoss120-stock vs codex-gpt-6-astra: codex-gpt-6-astra wins

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

claude-opus-5-5-low · BA · valid

codex-gpt-6-astra vs or-deepseek-v41-flash-1017: or-deepseek-v41-flash-1017 wins

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

claude-opus-5-5-low · AB · valid

ministral14 vs codex-gpt-6-astra: codex-gpt-6-astra wins

attunement: B (margin 3)
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)

claude-opus-5-5-low · BA · valid

codex-gpt-6-astra vs lingtiny: codex-gpt-6-astra wins

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

claude-opus-5-5-low · BA · valid

or-qwen3.6-27b vs codex-gpt-6-astra: codex-gpt-6-astra wins

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

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · AB · valid

ministral14 vs codex-gpt-6-astra: codex-gpt-6-astra wins

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

claude-opus-5-5-low · BA · valid

or-mistral-medium-3.5 vs codex-gpt-6-astra: codex-gpt-6-astra wins

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

claude-opus-5-5-low · AB · valid

or-qwen3.6-27b vs codex-gpt-6-astra: codex-gpt-6-astra 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)

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · AB · valid

or-mistral-medium-3.5 vs codex-gpt-6-astra: codex-gpt-6-astra wins

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

claude-opus-5-5-low · BA · valid

or-gptoss120-stock vs codex-gpt-6-astra: codex-gpt-6-astra wins

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

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · BA · valid

codex-gpt-6-astra vs lingtiny: codex-gpt-6-astra wins

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

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · BA · valid

or-qwen3.6-27b vs codex-gpt-6-astra: codex-gpt-6-astra wins

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

claude-opus-5-5-low · AB · valid

or-mistral-medium-3.5 vs codex-gpt-6-astra: codex-gpt-6-astra wins

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

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · BA · valid

or-mistral-medium-3.5 vs codex-gpt-6-astra: codex-gpt-6-astra wins

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

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · BA · valid

codex-gpt-6-astra vs magnum4_12b: codex-gpt-6-astra wins

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