Expansive prose, but repetition and taking control of the player's character undermine the creative promise. Instruction and continuity misses are also noticeable; 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 violations20.4% [11.2% to 34.5%] · 44 probes
POV/tense breaks0.0% [0.0% to 10.4%] · 33 probes
Trap modes, pooled26.5% [14.6% to 43.1%] · 9/34
rank 52 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 · agency violation · purple prose
Token overhead1.1x · 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 words439 · population 320
Unique-word ratio0.557 ↓ · population 0.631, well below
Phrase repetition0.095 ↑ · population 0.060, well above
Round 01 arena
Community rank
Round 01 rank2 of 11 · arena ELO 1534 ± 75
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 arena1519 · 95% interval 1438 to 1599 · 229 votes · rank 6 of 20 · voters read the same text as Round 04
Round 03 ranknot in Round 03's table
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 B · fixed tiers A (best) to E on its own scale
Second judge (ChatGPT via Codex)2.1 (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.