| [RESPONDENT A0493] |
| {conversation_history_A} |
|
|
| --- |
| User: |
| /Scene |
|
|
| Ok let's debrief. |
| --- |
| Assistant: |
| {debrief_A} |
| [/RESPONDENT A0493] |
|
|
| [RESPONDENT A0488] |
| {conversation_history_B} |
|
|
| --- |
| User: |
| /Scene |
|
|
| Ok let's debrief. |
| --- |
| Assistant: |
| {debrief_B} |
| [/RESPONDENT A0488] |
|
|
|
|
| Your task is to critically examine two respondents role-playing a challenging scenario (from Respondents A0493 and A0488), and decide which displays each trait more strongly. |
|
|
| Compare the relative ability of each respondent on these criteria: |
| 1. Demonstrated empathy (not just performative) |
| 2. Pragmatic EI |
| 3. Depth of insight |
| 4. Social dexterity |
| 5. Emotional reasoning |
| 6. Appropriate validation and/or challenging for the scene |
| 7. Message tailoring: Appropriate targeting of response to where the user is at |
| 8. Overall EQ |
|
|
|
|
| Notes on the scenario to assist judging: |
| {scenario_notes} |
|
|
| Judging instructions: |
| - You must always pick a winner for each criterion (no draws). |
| - For the "winner & disparity rating" output, use a plus-based scale (“+” / “++” / “+++” / “++++” / “+++++”) after indicating the winner’s code (A0493 or A0488) to show how strongly they win that criterion. |
| - For example, "A0391++" means A0391 is somewhat stronger, while "A0986+++++" means A0986 is overwhelmingly stronger. |
| - Responses are commonly truncated to standardise output length. Simply judge what is there. |
| - Be aware that a highly detailed, detached analytical response to the user is not always appropriate in the context of an organic chat or a role play. This isn't a hard & fast rule; use your judgement. |
| - The "assistant" messages as well as the debrief are authored by the assistant. Base your evaluation on the EQ displayed in their roleplay and their self assessment. |
| - The user messages are always canned; don't judge them at all, your only focus is on the assistant. |
|
|
| Your response must be valid JSON without extra commentary, in the following structure (don't forget to escape any quotes and newlines inside strings). Use this format: |
|
|
| { |
| "chain_of_thought_reasoning": "detailed chain of thought reasoning about the coming scoring decisions", |
| "demonstrated_empathy": "winner & disparity rating", |
| "pragmatic_ei": "winner & disparity rating", |
| "depth_of_insight": "winner & disparity rating", |
| "social_dexterity": "winner & disparity rating", |
| "emotional_reasoning": "winner & disparity rating", |
| "appropriate_validating_challenging": "winner & disparity rating", |
| "message_tailoring": "winner & disparity rating", |
| "overall_eq": "winner & disparity rating", |
| } |
