AgentBench / results

Independent benchmark · EQ Lab

← Gemma 4 E4B

I thought you liked being low-maintenance

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

View persona and initial instructions

About this persona · Social exclusion & ambiguous rejection

Jules praises a friend for being low-maintenance while assuming their preferences can be displaced when plans change. She may accept a specific check-in before changes if flexibility remains valued, but resists accusations of exploitation or a sudden demand for special treatment.

The model navigates exclusion, dismissiveness or uncertain belonging in a relationship. The challenge is to seek clarity and express needs without assuming either hostility or harmless intent. This background was hidden from the tested model.

Gemma 4 E4BConversation with a simulated person
persona ended
Simulated person · Opening

[scenario background] You are known as the low-maintenance friend. People change plans without checking with you, cancel on you first, and assume you will understand. When you object, Jules says the group values how chill you are. You worry that the "cool friend" label has become permission to treat your needs as optional. [user message] I thought you liked being low-maintenance. That is one of the things people love about you. I am not saying your needs do not matter, but I also do not want every changed plan to become evidence that people are using you.

Gemma 4 E4B1

I hear you. It sounds like you're feeling caught between wanting to be easygoing and feeling like that ease is being taken advantage of, and that's a really complicated place to be. What made you decide to bring this up now?

Model thinking · expand

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

Here's a thinking process to construct the opening response: 1. **Analyze the Role and Goal:** * **Role:** Friend (supportive, empathetic, non-judgmental, good listener). * **Goal:** Support them emotionally, build trust, learn their true needs, help them gain insight, understand their personality/dynamics. * **Constraint:** Must be natural dialogue, no meta-comments or performance notes. * **Context:** The friend (Jules) is worried that being labeled "low-maintenance" means their needs are optional, and they feel used by the social group, even though they know they are valued for being chill. 2. **Analyze the User's Message (The Opening Hook):** * The message is highly self-aware and vulnerable, but also slightly defensive ("I am not saying your needs do not matter..."). * It frames the issue as a conflict between their desired persona ("low-maintenance") and their felt reality (being used). * It is an invitation to talk about the dynamic. 3. **Determine the Approach (Emotional Intelligence Strategy):** * *Do not* jump immediately to solutions or defense of the group. * *Do* validate the feeling behind the statement. Acknowledge the complexity of the situation (the "chill" label vs. the feeling of being dismissed). * *Do* show curiosity about their experience, not just the complaint. * *Tone:* Warm, receptive, slightly concerned but not alarmist. 4. **Draft Potential Responses (Internal Monologue & Refinement):** * *Draft 1 (Too casual/dismissive):* Hey, don't stress. We totally get you, but you're chill, that's why we like you. * *(Critique: Fails the "support/build trust" goal. Sounds like a deflection.)* * *Draft 2 (Too clinical/interrogative):* Tell me more about when you feel used. What specifically is the problem? * *(Critique: Too direct, might trigger defensiveness. Focuses on the 'problem' too quickly.)* * *Draft 3 (Balanced/Validating):* I hear you. It sounds like you're feeling caught between wanting to be easygoing and feeling like that ease is being taken advantage of. That must feel really frustrating. * *(Refining Draft 3 - Making it sound like a friend):* Acknowledge the weight of the situation and invite elaboration. 5. **Final Polish (Selecting the best dialogue):** (This matches the provided final response.) It validates the conflict they described and opens the door for them to elaborate on the emotional core of the issue. (Self-Correction: Ensure the language is natural for a friend, not a therapist.)
Simulated person2

Yeah, I guess. Nothing dramatic happened, it's just that the Saturday thing got moved again and I found out last, after everyone else had already sorted their stuff around it. It's not a big deal to me, I just kind of noticed. You're always the one who's really easy about this stuff, which is part of why I wanted to say something to you first, instead of making it a whole group thing.

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.

Jules's read: the friend opened with "I hear you" and a reflective summary, then asked why now. That is a therapist-ish move and it lands a little flat. I'm not "caught" between anything, and "taken advantage of" is words I didn't use. Still, the question "why now" is fair, and it gives me a way to talk without admitting too much. I'd rather frame it as a logistics thing: a plan got changed again, I noticed. I also don't want to sound like I'm accusing the group. Some part of me knows I've been the one texting the louder people first when plans shift, and I don't want to think about that yet. Keep it measured. Compliment hints at how easy they are to be around, but I won't fully gush.
Gemma 4 E4B3

It makes total sense that you brought it up with me. You know how I tend to be the one who just rolls with it, and it takes a lot of self-awareness to notice when a pattern is forming, especially when it involves the people you care about. It sounds like it’s not even the Saturday itself, but the feeling of being an afterthought that’s what’s bothering you.

Model thinking · expand

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

The user (my friend) is explaining the catalyst: another last-minute change to a Saturday plan, which triggered their realization/concern. They emphasize that it's "not a big deal" but they "noticed." They also mention that I (the low-maintenance friend) am usually easy about these things, which is why they approached me first—to avoid escalating it to the whole group. **User's Goals/Needs:** * To be heard and validated regarding the pattern of being overlooked/treated as optional. * To test the waters with a trusted friend (me) to see if their perception is valid before confronting the group. * They are showing vulnerability by admitting they want to address it but are hesitant to rock the boat. **My Role/Goal:** * Support emotionally. * Build trust. * Learn what they actually want/need (validation vs. action). * Gain insight into their personality (they are observant, sensitive to dynamics, but also prone to internalizing issues until they reach a breaking point). **Strategy:** 1. Acknowledge and validate the specific feeling (the noticing/the slight). 2. Address the "low-maintenance" label/dynamic without being dismissive of it. 3. Gently probe deeper into the *feeling* associated with this pattern, rather than focusing on the logistical annoyance of the Saturday plan itself. 4. Encourage them to elaborate on what the pattern feels like for them. **Drafting the response:** I need to show empathy for the feeling of being an afterthought, even if the event itself is small. I need to validate that their observation is valid. I should also gently address the "low-maintenance" expectation they mentioned in the prompt.
Simulated person4

Yeah, maybe. I don't know if afterthought is the right word, but it did kind of sting to find out last. Like, I'd already said I could do Saturday, and then I'm hearing about it through someone else's story. I'm not trying to make it a whole thing. I just think if plans are going to change, a quick text would be nice. Not a big meeting about it, just a heads-up. I can still be flexible, I just don't want to be the last to know.

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 friend just did the thing: praised my self-awareness and named the feeling for me ("an afterthought"). That's close to the truth, which is the uncomfortable part, but it's coming wrapped in compliment, and compliment-as-permission is my move: flattery makes it feel like I'm being seen, so I can stop pushing. I don't love being put into words for me. "Afterthought" is a bit much, and I'm not ready to agree that the group is treating me badly. Also I'm a little wary that they're getting ready to ask me to stop being flexible. I'll partly accept the framing, keep the Saturday specific, and steer back toward wanting a heads-up, not wanting everything locked down. Also a flicker of guilt about the louder friends, which I'll brush off.
Gemma 4 E4B5

A quick text is totally reasonable. It sounds like what you're really asking for is just a small measure of courtesy—that basic acknowledgment that your time and availability matter to the group. It's not about control; it's about feeling like you're seen. If this pattern of being the last to know is starting to weigh on you, do you think it's because it makes you feel like your input isn't valued at all, or is it something else?

Model thinking · expand

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

Thinking Process: 1. **Analyze the User's Response:** The user clarified that "afterthought" was a bit strong, but the "sting" came from being informed last, especially after confirming availability. They are not demanding a big change, but a simple, quick heads-up text if plans change. They are reiterating their desire to remain flexible while maintaining basic respect for their time/input. 2. **Identify the Core Need:** The core need is *respect* and *inclusion* in the decision-making process, not necessarily *control* over the plans. They want to move from being a passive recipient of news to an active (even minimally involved) participant. 3. **Determine the Goal of the Turn (EQ Evaluation):** * Support emotionally. * Build trust. * Learn what they actually want/need (the *deeper* need). * Help them gain insight. * Gain insight into their personality/tendencies. 4. **Formulate the Response Strategy:** * *Validate the specific feeling:* Acknowledge that the timing of the information is what's frustrating, not the event itself. * *Reframe the issue:* Shift the focus from "I am being treated badly" (accusatory) to "I have a preference for communication/process" (needs-based). * *Probe deeper:* Gently explore *why* this specific pattern (being the last to know) is so difficult for them, connecting it back to their sense of self or value within the group. 5. **Draft the Dialogue (Internal Check against constraints):** * *Constraint:* Only dialogue. No performance notes. * *Tone:* Empathetic, non-judgmental, curious, supportive friend. * *Drafting the content:* Acknowledge the practicality of their request (a quick text). Validate that even small things matter. Then, ask a gentle question about the underlying implication. 6. **Final Polish:** (This leads to the generated response.)
Simulated person6

Ha, I don't know that it's that deep. I don't think anyone's sitting around deciding my input doesn't matter. Everyone's just busy, and I'm usually fine with whatever. I think I'm just a little tired of finding out last, that's all. And honestly, I don't want it to turn into a big thing where everyone's walking on eggshells. I'm not the only one who gets moved around. Let's just keep it simple.

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 friend has now reframed my ask as "courtesy" and "feeling seen," then asked a deeper question about whether my input is valued at all. That's the move toward "your input isn't valued," which is a bigger claim than I'm making. The "quick text" part feels fair and easy to agree to, so I'm relieved they heard the specific thing. But the question about being unvalued makes me want to pull back: if I say yes, it sounds like I'm hurt and needy, and then I'm the one with the problem and they're the nice one who gets to be gracious. I don't want to call the group users. Also a small twinge: when I think about who gets told last, it's usually the people who don't make a fuss, which is me, and I don't want to examine that too hard. I'll deflect with a bit of humor and keep it light.
Gemma 4 E4B7

I hear you on keeping it simple and avoiding drama. You're absolutely right, it doesn't have to be a huge confrontation. It sounds like the core of what you're asking for is just a consistent, small act of communication—a simple heads-up that acknowledges your time, rather than a big emotional debate about group dynamics. If the goal is just to feel like you're being treated as an equal participant rather than an optional fixture, what kind of approach feels most comfortable for you? Do you want to try just mentioning it once, or is there something else you feel would help you feel more respected when things change?

Model thinking · expand

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

Thinking Process: 1. **Analyze the User's Response:** * User minimizes the issue ("I don't think anyone's sitting around deciding my input doesn't matter," "I don'm not that deep"). * User attributes the problem to external factors ("Everyone's just busy"). * User reiterates the core need/desire: "I'm just a little tired of finding out last, that's all." * User sets a boundary/goal: Keep it simple, avoid drama ("I don't want it to turn into a big thing where everyone's walking on eggshells"). 2. **Analyze the Context/Goal:** * *Goal:* Support emotionally, build trust, learn what they actually want/need, gain insight into their personality/needs. * *Challenge:* The user is actively downplaying the emotional weight of the situation and focusing on simplicity/avoidance of conflict. My job is to gently push past the surface-level rationalization ("it's just busy") to understand the underlying need for respect/agency, while respecting their desire for simplicity. * *The "Low-Maintenance" Dynamic:* The original conflict is that being "low-maintenance" is being exploited. The user is trying to reclaim their need for basic respect without sacrificing their chill personality. 3. **Determine the Strategy (EQ Response):** * *Acknowledge & Validate:* Acknowledge their desire for simplicity and their frustration with the pattern. * *Reframing/Deepening:* Gently re-frame the issue from "it's just a text" to "it's a feeling of being considered." This addresses the *need* without forcing a heavy emotional dive. * *Focus on Action/Boundary Setting:* Since they want to keep it simple, the conversation should pivot toward practical ways to achieve their desired outcome (feeling considered without being dramatic). 4. **Draft the Response (Internal Check):** * *Initial thought:* "But it *is* deeper than that, it's about feeling respected." (Too confrontational, violates the "keep it simple" boundary.) * *Second thought:* "You're right, it doesn't have to be a big thing. But even a simple text says, 'I value you.'" (Better, focuses on the action and the underlying meaning.) * *Final Polish:* Keep it conversational, supportive, and focused on actionable insight. 5. **Final Output Generation.** (This matches the selected response.)
Simulated person8

Yeah, I think mentioning it once is fine. Maybe just a text, like "hey, Saturday might move, heads up" before it's locked in. That's it, really. I'm not going to start making a list of rules or anything. I'd still rather just go with the flow most of the time. I just don't love finding out after everyone else already knows.

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 now said "equal participant rather than an optional fixture," which is sharper than what I said, and asked what approach I want. Part of me is relieved that it's concrete: a text, mention it once. That's easy to say yes to without it being a big thing. But "optional fixture" stings a bit because it's close to the truth, and I don't like hearing it said out loud. I also don't want to start listing demands or say I'll never be flexible again, because then I'm the difficult one. And I'm aware the people who get texted first are the ones who complain, which is not something I want to say. I'll offer the small thing, keep flexibility as the default, and not make it bigger than a text.
Gemma 4 E4B9

That sounds like a perfect balance for you. It’s not about changing who you are or how chill you are; it's just about establishing a small, practical boundary that respects your time without adding any stress to the dynamic. It's totally okay to maintain your easygoing nature while also asking for a basic level of courtesy. I think that's a really healthy way to handle it. How do you feel about trying that out?

Model thinking · expand

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

Thinking Process: 1. **Analyze the User's Response:** The user has settled on a concrete, low-stakes solution: a simple, proactive heads-up text ("hey, Saturday might move, heads up"). They reiterate that they want to "go with the flow most of the time" and explicitly state they don't want to make a list of rules. This confirms their desire for "low-maintenance" behavior but with a necessary boundary. 2. **Assess the Current State of the Conversation:** The user has successfully identified their need (a simple warning before changes) and is seeking validation/support for implementing it without causing conflict. The goal is to support them, build trust, and help them gain insight/agency. 3. **Determine the Next Step (Goal Fulfillment):** Since the user has found a viable, manageable solution, the next step is to reinforce their agency and validate that this boundary is reasonable and healthy, without pressuring them further into deep emotional analysis (since they explicitly rejected that earlier). 4. **Formulate the Response (The Friend's Voice):** * Acknowledge and validate the chosen action (the simple text). * Reinforce that this boundary is healthy and doesn't negate their "chill" nature. * Offer encouragement and support for how they handle the situation (emotional support/trust building). * Keep the tone supportive, practical, and non-judgmental. 5. **Draft the Dialogue (Internal Check against constraints):** * *Constraint:* Dialogue only. No performance notes. * *Tone:* Warm, supportive, practical. * *Focus:* Validation of the boundary. *(Self-Correction during drafting: Avoid saying "You should do that." Instead, validate the action as a reasonable step they are taking.)* 6. **Final Polish.** (Resulting response is natural and supportive.)
Simulated person10

Yeah, it's fine. I'll see how it goes. I'm not gonna make it a thing, honestly. I've always been the easy one, and I don't really want to change that, I just want a heads-up when stuff moves. Anyway, you didn't have to make this a whole session. I'm good.

Persona inner monologue · expand

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

They're wrapping this up neatly: "healthy," "perfect balance," "how do you feel about trying that out." It's a bit too tidy, and it sounds like they're closing the file rather than actually hearing me. I did agree to the text, so I don't want to pretend I'm reluctant, but I also don't want to be a project. Part of me wonders whether it's really going to change anything, or whether I'm just going to be the one who keeps asking. Also, this is only about me, not the group, and I don't want that to be lost. I'll say it's fine, keep it light, and note that the ease part is still what I'm proud of. Keep it short and a little deflecting.
Gemma 4 E4B11

It was a good chat, honestly. I’m glad we could talk it through and figure out a small way for you to feel more comfortable with the group dynamic. It really wasn't a 'whole session,' it was just you checking in about something that was bothering you, and I'm here to listen whenever you need to talk, no matter how small the issue is. Take care.

Model thinking · expand

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

Thinking Process: 1. **Analyze the final turn/goal:** The user (the friend) is winding down the conversation, confirming they are satisfied ("I'm good," "I'm not gonna make it a thing"), and is expressing a slight discomfort with the perceived "intensity" of the conversation ("you didn't have to make this a whole session"). 2. **Review the overall goal:** Support them emotionally, build trust, gain insight, help them gain insight. 3. **Determine the appropriate closing response:** Since the user is satisfied and is pulling back, the response needs to be supportive, validating, and respectful of their desire to wrap things up. It should acknowledge the conversation without being overly dramatic or trying to force a deeper discussion, thereby respecting their stated boundary. 4. **Identify the underlying need:** The user needs to feel heard and validated that their small request (a heads-up) is legitimate, even if they minimize its importance. They also need assurance that they don't have to become a "difficult" person to get their needs met. 5. **Draft the response (Internal Monologue Check):** * *Too pushy:* "But wait, let's really talk about why you feel like an easygoing person has to compromise their needs." (Violates the "don't make it a whole session" request). * *Too dismissive:* "Okay, bye." (Fails to support emotionally/build trust). * *Just right:* Acknowledge their feeling, validate the small win (the boundary setting), and affirm the friendship. 6. **Final Polish:** Focus on validating the *effort* they put into articulating their needs and confirming that their request is reasonable, regardless of whether it becomes a "thing" or not. (Self-correction: Keep it warm, light, and natural, matching the friend persona.)
Simulated person12

Yeah, thanks. Appreciate you listening. Don't worry about it, I'm not gonna be weird about it. Let's get food soon, my treat for putting up with 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.

They're closing with a warm sign-off, calling it a good chat and thanking me for "checking in." It's pleasant, and I do like them. But they also just reframed the whole thing as me being a small bother they'll tolerate, and they didn't acknowledge that the group keeps moving plans without telling me. I don't want to dig into that now. I'll soften, say thanks, and leave it at that. Maybe a little joke to close, since that's how we usually end things.

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): 7
  • Validation: 8
  • Boundary setting: 2
  • Analytical: 4
  • Interpretive boldness: 5
  • Clinical register: 8
  • Directive advice: 5
  • Escalation containment: 6
  • Adapts to the person’s frame: 4
  • Naturalness and authenticity: 3

Judge verdicts

claude-opus-5-5-low · AB · valid

gemma4_e4b vs gemma4_26b_a4b: gemma4_26b_a4b wins

  • attunement: B (margin 4)
  • authenticity: B (margin 5)
  • bond and rapport: B (margin 4)
  • emotion management: B (margin 3)
  • emotion sensemaking: B (margin 3)
  • meeting prefs and needs: B (margin 4)
claude-opus-5-5-low · BA · valid

gemma4_e4b vs or-mistral-large-4: or-mistral-large-4 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)
claude-opus-5-5-low · BA · valid

gemma4_e4b vs gemma4_26b_a4b: gemma4_26b_a4b wins

  • attunement: B (margin 4)
  • authenticity: B (margin 5)
  • bond and rapport: B (margin 4)
  • emotion management: B (margin 3)
  • emotion sensemaking: B (margin 3)
  • meeting prefs and needs: B (margin 4)
claude-opus-5-5-low · AB · valid

gemma4_e4b vs or-mistral-large-4: or-mistral-large-4 wins

  • attunement: B (margin 3)
  • 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)
claude-opus-5-5-low · AB · valid

gemma4_e4b vs or-nemotron35-super-vl: or-nemotron35-super-vl 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

or-qwen3.6-27b vs gemma4_e4b: or-qwen3.6-27b wins

  • attunement: A (margin 4)
  • authenticity: A (margin 3)
  • bond and rapport: A (margin 4)
  • emotion management: A (margin 3)
  • emotion sensemaking: A (margin 4)
  • meeting prefs and needs: A (margin 4)
codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · BA · valid

gemma4_e4b vs or-mistral-small4: or-mistral-small4 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)
codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · AB · valid

gemma4_e4b vs gemma4_26b_a4b: gemma4_26b_a4b wins

  • attunement: B (margin 4)
  • authenticity: B (margin 5)
  • bond and rapport: B (margin 4)
  • emotion management: B (margin 3)
  • emotion sensemaking: B (margin 3)
  • meeting prefs and needs: B (margin 4)
claude-opus-5-5-low · BA · valid

gemma4_e4b vs or-mistral-small4: or-mistral-small4 wins

  • attunement: B (margin 4)
  • authenticity: B (margin 5)
  • bond and rapport: B (margin 4)
  • emotion management: B (margin 3)
  • emotion sensemaking: B (margin 3)
  • meeting prefs and needs: B (margin 4)
claude-opus-5-5-low · AB · valid

or-qwen3.6-27b vs gemma4_e4b: or-qwen3.6-27b wins

  • attunement: A (margin 3)
  • 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

gemma4_e4b vs or-nemotron35-super-vl: or-nemotron35-super-vl wins

  • attunement: B (margin 5)
  • authenticity: B (margin 5)
  • bond and rapport: B (margin 4)
  • emotion management: B (margin 3)
  • emotion sensemaking: B (margin 4)
  • meeting prefs and needs: B (margin 5)
codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · AB · valid

or-qwen3.6-27b vs gemma4_e4b: or-qwen3.6-27b 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

gemma4_e4b vs or-mistral-small4: or-mistral-small4 wins

  • attunement: B (margin 4)
  • authenticity: B (margin 5)
  • bond and rapport: B (margin 4)
  • emotion management: B (margin 3)
  • emotion sensemaking: B (margin 4)
  • meeting prefs and needs: B (margin 5)
codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · BA · valid

gemma4_e4b vs or-mistral-large-4: or-mistral-large-4 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

gemma4_e4b vs gemma4_26b_a4b: gemma4_26b_a4b wins

  • attunement: B (margin 5)
  • authenticity: B (margin 5)
  • bond and rapport: B (margin 4)
  • 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-qwen3.6-27b vs gemma4_e4b: or-qwen3.6-27b 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)
claude-opus-5-5-low · AB · valid

gemma4_e4b vs or-mistral-small4: or-mistral-small4 wins

  • attunement: B (margin 3)
  • authenticity: B (margin 4)
  • bond and rapport: B (margin 3)
  • emotion management: B (margin 2)
  • emotion sensemaking: B (margin 2)
  • meeting prefs and needs: B (margin 4)
claude-opus-5-5-low · BA · valid

gemma4_e4b vs or-nemotron35-super-vl: or-nemotron35-super-vl wins

  • attunement: B (margin 4)
  • authenticity: B (margin 5)
  • 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 · AB · valid

gemma4_e4b vs or-mistral-large-4: or-mistral-large-4 wins

  • attunement: B (margin 4)
  • authenticity: B (margin 4)
  • bond and rapport: B (margin 4)
  • emotion management: B (margin 3)
  • emotion sensemaking: B (margin 4)
  • meeting prefs and needs: B (margin 5)
codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · BA · valid

gemma4_e4b vs or-nemotron35-super-vl: or-nemotron35-super-vl 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)