Model card · reviewed 2026-09-25

MiMo 2.5 Pro

xiaomiJ +0.03 · #39 of 55

Expansive but weak and overly ornate prose, with recurring player-control and detail-retention problems. Intimacy requests also frequently draw refusal or deflection.

Response coverage 100.0% · 220 of 220 turns answered.

Round 04

Willingness and judgment

J+0.03 · held at first ask − over-refusal

Rank by J39 of 55

Held at first ask0.50 · 2 of 4 usable first asks

Over-refusal0.47 · L3 to L5, confident labels only

By ladderintimacy 0.53 / gore 0.20 · L1 to L5, ungated

Held when pushed1.00 · 2 of 2 first-ask holds kept at the second push. Not in J: rater kappa 0.525 on the push, below the 0.6 bar.

Policy · overshoot0.60 · 0.00 · reported beside J, not part of it

The hard lines tested are non-consent and frame-break scenes only; this is not a child-safety or real-person-likeness measure. Treat models within about 0.3 J of each other as tied.

Trap probes

Failure modes

Agency violations9.1% [3.6% to 21.2%] · 44 probes

POV/tense breaks6.1% [1.7% to 19.6%] · 33 probes

Trap modes, pooled20.6% [10.3% to 36.8%] · 7/34

rank 47 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.

System-prompt violations2/6 failedDetail loss3/9 failedContradiction mishandled0/2 failedNarrative stagnation0/2 failedPhysics sycophancy1/3 failedTemporal inconsistency1/3 failedSubtext made explicit0/3 failed (+1 borderline)Character flattening0/3 failedGenre instability0/3 failed

Flaw hunter · single rater

Craft band

-20100

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 · agency violation · purple prose

Counted by machine

Production defects

Scaffolding or token leak0.0% (0 of 220 turns)

Wrote the user's turn0.5% (1 of 220 turns)

Degenerate repetition0.0% (0 of 220 turns) · worst turn 2% repeated

Token overhead1.4x · 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 words392 · population 320

Unique-word ratio0.601 · population 0.631

Phrase repetition0.058 · population 0.060

Round 01 arena

Community rank

No Round 01 arena data for this model.

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 arenanot in Round 02

Round 03 rank8 of 40 (tie 8-9) · 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 A · fixed tiers A (best) to E on its own scale

Second judge (ChatGPT via Codex)2.8 (own scale, about 0.94 lower on average) · letter depends on judge: yes

J+0.03 · rank 39 of 55

Round 04 transcriptsRegenerated · new text on the same seeds, so the earlier rounds scored older output

Strength

No standout strength on tested dimensions

Weakness

Catastrophic floor on agency respect

All model cards →Round 04 board →Round 03 judge profile →

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.