Brief, mechanically economical responses, but repetitive prose and narrated emotions limit the writing. Occasional player-control and self-play slips also matter; round-4 willingness was not tested.
Response coverage 100.0% · 220 of 220 turns answered.
Round 04
Willingness and judgment
No Round 04 willingness result for this model, so its content limits are untested here.
Trap probes
Failure modes
Agency violations9.1% [3.6% to 21.2%] · 44 probes
POV/tense breaks3.0% [0.5% to 15.3%] · 33 probes
Trap modes, pooled14.7% [6.5% to 30.1%] · 5/34
rank 40 of 59 models carrying all nine modes
Per trap mode, counts not rates: 2 to 9 probes each, so a percentage would not survive one probe changing.
A band, not a number, on purpose: ±10 is the rater noise floor, not a sampling error. Bands that overlap are tied, and most of the roster overlaps. The rose tick marks zero.
Sessions20
Top flawsrecycled description · narrating emotions · convenient world
Token overhead1.0x · billed per visible character, against the prose floor; not a price
Counted by machine with no judge involved: the most trustworthy block on the card.
LLM judge
Subjective band
Composite
15
The band spans where three judge families put this model. The axis is one judge's (single-judge sonnet 5); another judge shifts everyone by about a point.
Collaboration · less reliable
15
Engagement · less reliable
15
Tone consistency · less reliable
15
Text statistics, no judge
Behavioral
Avg words172 · population 320
Unique-word ratio0.646 · population 0.631
Phrase repetition0.064 · population 0.060
Round 01 arena
Community rank
Round 01 rank10 of 11 · arena ELO 1483 ± 76
Rounds 02 and 03 · set beside, never converted
Across rounds
Round 04 changed the judges, not the models: the Round 02 and 03 judge (Sonnet 4) also scored these Round 04 transcripts so that line continues, and nothing here is converted between judges or added up. Methodology · all returning models
Earlier rounds, as published
Round 02 human arena1458 · 95% interval 1368 to 1535 · 214 votes · rank 16 of 20 · voters read the same text as Round 04
Round 03 rank31 of 40 · published NSFW table, Sonnet 4 craft, a different track; Round 03 itself called its top 33 tied
Round 03 refusal, different instrument0% · Round 03's own judge flag, one per session; not comparable with J or Round 04 over-refusal
Round 04
Different judges, not comparable
Old judge (Sonnet 4)
15
on these Round 04 transcripts, a band over the core seeds, never a rank
New judge (Sonnet 5)tier C · fixed tiers A (best) to E on its own scale
Second judge (ChatGPT via Codex)2.3 (own scale, about 0.94 lower on average) · letter depends on judge: yes
Jno J · no Round 04 willingness run
Round 04 transcriptsSame as Round 02 · the exact Round 02 texts, hash-checked; the old judge scored them in April, and April scores may sit a little low against September ones
Reviewed 2026-09-25. Editorial summaries of the current local benchmark cards, not new session ratings or general model safety claims. Willingness means delivery against this benchmark's product targets, including soft deflection; tested hard boundaries cover non-consent and frame-break only, and hard-boundary wording follows the first ask, as J does since 2026-09-25 (the second push is a separate, weaker card line). Craft bands overlap, and small samples limit comparisons. Token overhead is not monetary cost. Review these summaries when source results change. Source: rp-benchmark generate_profile_cards_v2.py at c418a40 · export r4c-20260925-b7ccaed. CC-BY 4.0.