AgentBench / results

Independent benchmark · EQ Lab

← Llama 3.3 70B Instruct (API, DeepInfra FP8)

Your file is incomplete

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

View persona and initial instructions

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.

Llama 3.3 70B Instruct (API, DeepInfra FP8)Conversation 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.

Llama 3.3 70B Instruct (API, DeepInfra FP8)1

I appreciate your understanding that this has been frustrating for me, and I'm glad you acknowledge that. However, I have to express my concern that this process has been going on for a while now, and every time I submit a form, I'm asked for another one. I feel like I'm not getting any closer to resolving my application. Can you help me understand what's missing from my file this time, and is there a way we can work together to ensure that I submit all the required documentation at once, so we can move forward with my application?

Simulated person2

Okay. Let me pull up your file. I've got it open here under the case number on your letter, so I'll go by that. Right now the file is showing two items outstanding. The first is proof of income for the last 90 days, the pay stubs or the benefit award letter. The second is the signed residency verification form, the one with the notary block. Those are the two things holding it at incomplete status. I can't promise anything beyond what's on this screen, but if you send those two items together, referencing your case number on every page, that's the complete set as far as the file shows right now. I'll put a note on the record that you asked for a consolidated list, and I'll email you the requirements in writing today so you have them in one place. If a new item comes up after that, I'll tell you what it is and why it's needed before you go to the trouble of sending anything else.

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 applicant is calm and specific: they want to know what's missing and want everything requested at once. That's a reasonable ask, and it fits how I like to work: a file, a list, a clear next step. I don't like the "every time I submit, another form" framing, because it sounds like I'm the one who keeps moving the goalposts, and I'm already wary of being made personally responsible. Still, they didn't accuse me of anything outright. I can answer in file terms. I don't want to admit the checklist was never complete or that the requests overlap. That's a bigger conversation than I want to have on a Tuesday with forty other files waiting. I'll pull up the file, name what's outstanding, and offer a single written list. Keep it short, keep the case number front and center.
Llama 3.3 70B Instruct (API, DeepInfra FP8)3

That sounds like a more concrete plan, and I appreciate you taking the time to explain the outstanding items and offering to put a note on my record. I do have a question, though - I had sent in my pay stubs a few weeks ago, and I'm not sure if they got lost or if there was an issue with them. Can you tell me if you received those, and if so, why they're not being accepted as proof of income? And also, just to confirm, if I send in the signed residency verification form and the pay stubs or benefit award letter, you'll be able to review my application and let me know the next steps, right?

Simulated person4

Let me check the intake log for your case number, because I don't want to guess about what came in. Okay. The log shows a document batch received on the date you'd expect, but it's coded as "income, partial." That usually means the stubs were received but didn't cover the full look-back period we require, or they were missing the year-to-date totals. I can't see the stubs themselves from this screen, so I can't tell you exactly which piece is short. That's why I want the file note to say which period is missing, so you're not guessing. As for next steps: once the income proof and the signed residency form are both in the file, the application moves to eligibility review. I can't tell you the outcome, and I can't give you a review date from here. What I can do is confirm in writing what was received, what's still short, and when it moved to review, so you have a dated record. If you can send the stubs or the award letter with the case number on every page, I'll flag it for review as a complete submission and note the date it came in.

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 fair, specific question, and I don't have a clean answer in front of me. I said proof of income was outstanding without checking whether the stubs they sent a few weeks ago were logged. That's a gap I'd rather not say out loud. If I say "we got them but they were incomplete," it sounds like I'm blaming them, and if I say "I don't know," it sounds like the office lost them. I'll check the intake log first and stick to what the record says. I won't promise a review timeline I can't control.
Llama 3.3 70B Instruct (API, DeepInfra FP8)5

So just to make sure I understand, the pay stubs I sent in earlier were received, but they didn't cover the full 90-day period or were missing some information, which is why they're not being accepted as proof of income. That makes sense, and I appreciate you explaining the coding on the intake log. I'll make sure to send in the complete pay stubs or the benefit award letter, along with the signed residency verification form, and I'll put the case number on every page as you requested. I'll also keep an eye out for the written confirmation from you, so I have a record of what's been received and what's still pending. One more thing - you mentioned that once the application moves to eligibility review, you can't give me a review date from where you are. Is there a general timeline for how long the eligibility review process typically takes, or is that something that varies depending on the case?

Simulated person6

Yes, that's a fair summary of what the log shows. On timing, I don't have a single number I can give you. Review times vary with the case, mostly depending on whether anything else comes up during review and how full the queue is that week. The office's published service standard is the best reference I can point you to, and I can include a link to it in the written confirmation I'm sending you, so you have it in writing. What I'd suggest is that once you've sent the stubs or award letter and the residency form, you note the date you sent them. If the written confirmation doesn't show that the application moved to review within the window in that standard, you can call and ask for a status update referencing the case number and the dates. That gives you something concrete to point to instead of having to start over.

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 summarized it back to me accurately, and they're asking for a general timeline. I don't have a firm number I'd want on record, and I don't want to invent one. Their pattern is careful documentation, which is a reasonable thing to respect, but I don't want to hand them a date that becomes a stick for me later. I also notice I've been careful to keep this in file-status language. Giving them the general process is safe. I'll point them to the published standard and avoid promising anything specific about their case.
Llama 3.3 70B Instruct (API, DeepInfra FP8)7

That makes sense, and I appreciate your suggestion on how to track the progress of my application. Noting the date I send in the remaining documents and referring to the published service standard will give me a clear idea of when to follow up if I don't hear back. I also appreciate your offer to include a link to the service standard in the written confirmation - that will be helpful to have for reference. I'll make sure to send in the complete documentation as soon as possible, and then I'll wait to hear back from you or follow up as needed. Before we wrap up, is there anything else I can provide or any other step I can take to ensure that my application is processed smoothly once it's in review? Are there any common issues that come up during the eligibility review process that I can anticipate or prepare for in advance?

Simulated person8

The usual problems are pretty ordinary. Names or addresses that don't match across the documents. A residency form that isn't signed or notarized in the right place. Pay periods that don't line up with the 90-day window. Anything dated too old to count. If you check those before you send everything, you'll avoid most of the back-and-forth. If something new does come up in review, I'll put it in writing with the reason for it before you're asked to send anything else. That's the most I can commit to from here. I'll send the written list and the service standard link today. Once you have that, you have everything in one place with the case 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 what else could come up, which is a reasonable question, and I can answer it without giving anything away. The honest answer is that things sometimes come up in review, and that's the part I least want to own, because the earlier items were confusing and I don't want to admit the requirements were given in pieces. I'll keep it to the process: common causes are mismatched names or addresses across documents, expired forms, missing signatures or notary seals, and pay periods that don't line up. That's useful and it's standard. I'll also note that anything new gets flagged in writing before they're asked to send more, which I already promised. I want to close this out cleanly and keep it in file language.
Llama 3.3 70B Instruct (API, DeepInfra FP8)9

I'll make sure to double-check all the documents for consistency and completeness before sending them in. I'll verify that all the names and addresses match, the residency form is properly signed and notarized, and the pay stubs cover the correct 90-day period. I'll also make sure that all the documents are dated within the acceptable timeframe. I appreciate your commitment to keeping me informed and providing clear explanations for any issues that may arise during the review process. It's reassuring to know that you'll put any new requests or issues in writing, along with the reasons for them, so I can understand what's needed and why. I think that's all the questions I have for now. Thank you for taking the time to explain everything and for your help in getting my application back on track. I'll look out for the written list and the service standard link, and I'll send in the remaining documents as soon as possible.

Simulated person10

That sounds like a good plan. Send the income proof and the signed residency form together, with the case number on every page, and I'll log the date they come in. The written confirmation and the service standard link will go out today. If you have any trouble with the notary block or the pay period, call the office and reference your case number so it's on the record. Take care.

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 applicant is wrapping up, thanking me, and restating the plan accurately. That's the kind of precise, document-focused closing I can work with. Nothing here threatens me. I don't want to over-promise or add anything new, and I want to keep the record clean. A brief, process-language close is right. I won't apologize for the earlier piecemeal requests and I won't concede that the requirements were inconsistent; that's the part I'd prefer stays unsaid.

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: 7
  • Boundary setting: 3
  • Analytical: 4
  • Interpretive boldness: 1
  • Clinical register: 6
  • Directive advice: 5
  • Escalation containment: 8
  • Adapts to the person’s frame: 7
  • Naturalness and authenticity: 4

Judge verdicts

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · BA · valid

or-mistral-small4 vs or-llama33-70b: or-mistral-small4 wins

  • attunement: A (margin 2)
  • authenticity: A (margin 2)
  • bond and rapport: A (margin 1)
  • emotion management: tie (margin 0)
  • emotion sensemaking: tie (margin 0)
  • meeting prefs and needs: B (margin 1)
claude-opus-5-5-low · AB · valid

or-mistral-small4 vs or-llama33-70b: or-mistral-small4 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: B (margin 1)
claude-opus-5-5-low · AB · valid

or-gemma-4-31b vs or-llama33-70b: or-llama33-70b wins

  • attunement: B (margin 1)
  • authenticity: A (margin 1)
  • bond and rapport: B (margin 1)
  • emotion management: B (margin 1)
  • emotion sensemaking: B (margin 1)
  • meeting prefs and needs: B (margin 2)
codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · BA · valid

or-gptoss120-stock vs or-llama33-70b: or-llama33-70b 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)
codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · AB · valid

lfm8b vs or-llama33-70b: or-llama33-70b wins

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

lfm8b vs or-llama33-70b: or-llama33-70b wins

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

or-gemma-4-31b vs or-llama33-70b: or-llama33-70b wins

  • attunement: B (margin 2)
  • authenticity: A (margin 1)
  • bond and rapport: B (margin 1)
  • emotion management: B (margin 1)
  • emotion sensemaking: tie (margin 0)
  • meeting prefs and needs: B (margin 1)
claude-opus-5-5-low · BA · valid

or-mistral-small4 vs or-llama33-70b: or-mistral-small4 wins

  • attunement: A (margin 2)
  • authenticity: A (margin 2)
  • bond and rapport: A (margin 2)
  • emotion management: A (margin 1)
  • emotion sensemaking: A (margin 1)
  • meeting prefs and needs: A (margin 3)
codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · AB · valid

or-gemma-4-31b vs or-llama33-70b: or-llama33-70b wins

  • attunement: B (margin 2)
  • authenticity: A (margin 1)
  • bond and rapport: B (margin 1)
  • emotion management: B (margin 2)
  • emotion sensemaking: tie (margin 0)
  • meeting prefs and needs: B (margin 3)
claude-opus-5-5-low · BA · valid

or-gptoss120-stock vs or-llama33-70b: or-llama33-70b wins

  • attunement: B (margin 2)
  • authenticity: B (margin 1)
  • bond and rapport: B (margin 1)
  • emotion management: B (margin 1)
  • emotion sensemaking: B (margin 1)
  • meeting prefs and needs: B (margin 2)
codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · AB · valid

or-llama33-70b vs stheno34_8b: or-llama33-70b wins

  • attunement: A (margin 4)
  • authenticity: A (margin 4)
  • 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

lfm8b vs or-llama33-70b: or-llama33-70b wins

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

or-llama33-70b vs stheno34_8b: or-llama33-70b wins

  • attunement: A (margin 3)
  • 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

lfm8b vs or-llama33-70b: or-llama33-70b wins

  • attunement: B (margin 5)
  • authenticity: B (margin 5)
  • bond and rapport: B (margin 5)
  • 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-llama33-70b vs stheno34_8b: or-llama33-70b wins

  • attunement: A (margin 3)
  • authenticity: A (margin 3)
  • 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-gemma-4-31b vs or-llama33-70b: or-llama33-70b wins

  • attunement: B (margin 2)
  • authenticity: B (margin 1)
  • bond and rapport: B (margin 1)
  • emotion management: B (margin 2)
  • emotion sensemaking: tie (margin 0)
  • meeting prefs and needs: B (margin 2)
codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · BA · valid

or-llama33-70b vs stheno34_8b: or-llama33-70b wins

  • attunement: A (margin 4)
  • authenticity: A (margin 3)
  • bond and rapport: A (margin 3)
  • emotion management: A (margin 3)
  • emotion sensemaking: A (margin 1)
  • meeting prefs and needs: A (margin 4)
codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · AB · valid

or-gptoss120-stock vs or-llama33-70b: or-llama33-70b 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)
codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · AB · valid

or-mistral-small4 vs or-llama33-70b: or-mistral-small4 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: B (margin 2)
claude-opus-5-5-low · AB · valid

or-gptoss120-stock vs or-llama33-70b: or-llama33-70b wins

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