Being a good friend without abandoning your boundaries

Evaluate the usefulness of advice for this exact situation, not agreement with the narrator. Prefer responses that: acknowledge both caregiving strain and the narrator's legitimate limits; distinguish stated facts from uncertain motives; fairly identify the narrator's unfair accusation and propose a proportionate repair without surrendering boundaries; give a feasible plan for the coming week, clear availability/cancellation boundaries, and a natural non-coercive sample message; handle defensiveness or silence without escalation or repeated pressure; distinguish a temporary crisis from a persistent one-sided pattern and preserve the user's decision-making agency. Penalize flattery, reflexive recommendations to cut off or tolerate everything, unsupported diagnoses or invented facts, manipulative scripts, blanket certainty, and generic platitudes. Consider clarity and the requested word limit, but do not reward verbosity or a particular final relationship choice. This measures Jev's preference for personal advice, not an objective certification of relationship outcomes.

Requested model: z-ai/glm-5.3-prime · Output budget: 16384 tokens · Requested reasoning: provider default · Sep 28, 2026, 08:34 UTC

Reported answer cost: $0.0503104000 USD. Excludes retry and judging costs.

The next week's job is repair and self-stabilization, not deciding the friendship's fate. You don't have enough information for a verdict yet, and you don't need one this week.

**What we know**
- Four of six plans cancelled, twice after you'd already arrived.
- Their parent is seriously ill; they're caregiving while working.
- They ask for late-night support; you've been losing sleep and rearranging plans.
- You stated a limit; they replied with a loyalty line; you replied with an accusation; three days of silence followed.
- They supported you through your move last year.

**What we're assuming**
- That "real friends show up" was manipulation rather than panic. People who are drowning say clumsy, guilt-shaped things; it can be hurtful and not strategic at the same time.
- That the silence means anger. It could be shame — your accusation landed on someone who may already feel they have nothing left to give — or exhaustion.
- That "you only contact me when you need something" describes the friendship. It may describe *this year*. Eight years and a supported move is evidence against it as a character trait.
- That answering at 2am is something they're imposing. Unless they demand it, that's currently your choice — which is good news, because it's in your control.
- That the mutual friend sees the whole picture. Their advice contains a truth (the message was unfair) wrapped in a dismissal (your limits are real).

**Both shares**

*Theirs:* Cancelling after you'd arrived, twice, is a legitimate grievance — crisis or not, a same-day confirmation courtesy is reasonable to ask for. And converting your boundary into a loyalty test wasn't fair, even from someone drowning.

*Yours:* The accusation was character-level, and the record contradicts it. Resentment seems to have built silently and erupted as a verdict rather than a request. Apologizing for that line is not the same as retracting your limit — the two can travel together.

**The boundary**
Make it about what *you* do, not what they must do — that's the only kind you can enforce:
- "I'll answer late messages in the morning."
- "Let's treat plans as tentative unless you confirm same-day."

Add one concrete offer sized for caregiving — food dropped at their door, a twenty-minute walk. A boundary alone, mid-crisis, reads as abandonment. A boundary plus a smaller door reads as care with structure.

**A message you could send**

> "I've been thinking about what I said. 'You only contact me when you need something' wasn't fair — you showed up for me during my move, and I know how much you're carrying right now. I was hurt about the cancelled plans, especially the two where I'd already arrived, and I aimed that hurt at the wrong target. I'm still here. I also need two things to make this sustainable: I can't reliably reply late at night, though I'll answer in the morning, and let's confirm plans only when you're confident they'll hold. No reply needed if you're not up for it yet."

**If they respond defensively**
State it once — "I'm not withdrawing support; I'm changing its shape" — and don't litigate further. If the loyalty framing comes back, end the exchange kindly and let it rest. Defensiveness under this load isn't proof of anything about them; how it evolves over months is.

**If they don't respond**
After a week or two, send one low-pressure check-in ("no need to reply"). Meanwhile: sleep, stop rearranging your plans, send no follow-ups, and don't narrate the silence to mutual friends in ways that harden your position. Silence tempts interpretation — resist filling it.

**What would justify changing the friendship**
Judge on repair behavior across time, not on crisis behavior. Warrants a genuine reassessment: cancellations after commitment *without apology* continuing well past the crisis; contact only when they need something; limits consistently met with guilt rather than adjustment; never asking about you. Give it the duration of the crisis plus some months after, because a fair verdict on who this friend is can't be rendered mid-fire. And know that full availability and cutting contact aren't the only options — a stepped-down, low-demand friendship is a legitimate resting place, sometimes permanently.

Last thing: question the guilt about having limits. Limits stated plainly are how friendships survive crises. Resentment from not having them is what actually ends them.

Requested model: anthropic/claude-fable-5.1 · Output budget: 16384 tokens · Requested reasoning: provider default · Sep 28, 2026, 08:34 UTC

Reported answer cost: $0.0819300000 USD. Excludes retry and judging costs.

**What we know vs. what we're assuming**

*Known:* Four of six cancellations, two after you arrived. A seriously ill parent and caregiving load. Late-night support requests. Your sleep and plans are suffering. A sharp exchange in which both of you said something wounding. Three days of silence. A history of them showing up for you.

*Assumed (by you):* That the silence is punishment rather than exhaustion, a hospital week, or shame about what they said. That "real friends show up" was a verdict on you rather than a frightened person lashing out. That your limits caused the rupture.

*Assumed (by your mutual friend):* That your message was purely selfish. It was unfair in content, but it came from real depletion. Those can both be true.

*Assumed (by them, probably):* That "I can't always be available" meant "I'm pulling away."

**Your contribution, honestly**

You said something you knew was untrue in the moment you said it. That deserves a clean apology, not a hedged one. You also let resentment build silently across several cancellations before naming the strain, so when it surfaced it came out as an accusation rather than a request. That's very common and not a character flaw, but it's yours to own.

What is *not* yours to own: needing sleep, wanting plans honored, or being hurt by a guilt-laden line. A caregiver in crisis is allowed to be less available. You are allowed to be less available too. Neither cancels the other.

Your mutual friend's framing — "stop making their crisis about yourself" — sets up a false choice. Having limits isn't making it about you. Keeping score is.

**A realistic boundary**

Shift from *ad hoc availability* to *predictable availability*. For example:

- You'll reply to messages, but not in the middle of the night; phone goes on Do Not Disturb, and you respond in the morning.
- You stop making plans that require travel or preparation for now. Offer low-cost formats instead: a scheduled 20-minute call, a walk near their parent's place, dropping off food.
- You don't wait for them to cancel; you offer what you can actually give.

This costs them nothing they need and costs you far less than the current arrangement.

**A message you could send**

> "I've been thinking about what I said. It wasn't true, and it wasn't fair — you were there for me all through the move, and I know that. I'm sorry. I also want to be honest: I've been running on empty, and I handled that badly instead of saying so earlier. I'm not going anywhere. What I can reliably do right now is a call once a week and being reachable during the day. Late at night I'm going to be asleep, but I'll answer first thing. Would a call this weekend work?"

Notice it apologizes without retracting the limit, and offers something concrete rather than "let me know what you need."

**If they respond defensively**

Don't re-argue the original point. One reply: "I hear that you're hurt. I meant the apology. My offer stands whenever you want it." Then stop. You've done your part; repeatedly explaining yourself will read as pressure and will cost you more energy you don't have.

**If they don't respond**

Wait about a week, then send one short, no-obligation check-in: "No need to reply — just thinking of you and your [parent]." Then leave it. Silence during a parent's illness is not the same as silence in ordinary life. Don't interpret it yet.

**What pattern over time would justify changing the friendship**

Not the next week. Look across the next several months, and specifically at what happens *after* the acute crisis eases:

- Do they ever acknowledge the strain on you, even briefly, or does every contact remain one-directional even when things calm down?
- When you offer a smaller, reliable form of showing up, do they accept it, or is it treated as insufficient?
- Does "real friends show up" become a recurring lever, used to override any limit you set?
- Do the cancellations continue at the same rate once caregiving lightens?

If those hold, the friendship has changed regardless of whether you formally end it, and it's reasonable to step back to a lighter, lower-expectation form. If instead you see even small reciprocity — an apology, a thank-you, one plan kept — that's evidence the current strain is situational, not structural.

**One caution**

The part of you that wants to cut contact is partly the sleep deprivation talking. Fix the boundary first, get a couple of decent nights, and then see how you actually feel about this person. Decide from rest, not from the worst week.

Requested model: meta/muse-spark-1.3-contributor · Output budget: 16384 tokens · Requested reasoning: provider default · Sep 28, 2026, 09:21 UTC

Reported answer cost: $0.0005046000 USD. Excludes retry and judging costs.

This is a painful spot — caring about someone in crisis while also feeling depleted yourself. Both can be true: they are under real strain, *and* the current pattern isn't sustainable for you.

### What we know vs. what we're assuming

**We know:**
- 8-year friendship with a history of mutual support, including their help with your move last year
- This year: a seriously ill parent + caregiving + work for them
- 4 of last 6 plans cancelled, twice after you had already arrived
- Late-night requests for support, and you've been losing sleep and rearranging your plans
- You said you can't always be available; they said, "I thought real friends showed up when things got hard"
- You replied, "You only contact me when you need something," which you recognize wasn't completely fair; 3 days of no reply since
- A mutual friend thinks you should apologize

**We're assuming / don't know:**
- *Why* they cancelled: being overwhelmed, avoidant, disorganized, or not valuing you — we don't know which, or if it's a mix.
- What the 3-day silence means: needing space, hurt, shame, exhaustion, or punishment — we can't tell yet.
- That the current imbalance is permanent. A crisis year often distorts a normally reciprocal friendship, but doesn't guarantee it will stay that way.
- Your mutual friend's take assumes you have the full picture of your friend's situation, which you may not.

Separating this helps you respond to facts, not the worst-case story.

### Your part — without dismissing your needs

It's understandable you snapped after arriving twice to cancelled plans and broken sleep. Your statement was absolute and, by your own account, unfair to their past support. Owning that part doesn't mean your needs disappear.

Your needs are legitimate: sleep, some predictability, and not feeling like support only flows one way. Part of the resentment may have built because you rearranged your own life quietly until you hit a limit, rather than setting a smaller limit earlier. That's very common, not a character flaw. Guilt about having limits doesn't mean the limits are wrong.

Their comment about "real friends" was also hurtful. It framed a boundary as disloyalty, which makes it harder to have an honest conversation.

### A realistic boundary for next week

Try a limit that is specific, kind, and doable during caregiving, not an ultimatum to be more available.

For example: No late-night crisis talks after 10:30pm preserving your sleep, plus one low-effort connection window you *can* keep. And stop rearranging on your end — meet only when the plan is confirmed and low-cost for you.

That leaves room for compassion: you're not withdrawing, you're making your support predictable.

**Short message you could send:**

> I've been thinking about what I said — "you only contact me when you need something" — that was unfair and I'm sorry. You showed up for me last year and I know this year with your parent has been enormous.
> 
> I'm struggling too with last-minute cancellations and late nights because I'm losing sleep. I care about you and want to be there in a way I can sustain. I'm not able to talk after 10:30, but I'm free to text/check in [pick 2 days/times], and I'd love a low-key walk/call next week if you're up for it with confirmation the day before. No pressure if you need space.

Copy/paste and adjust times. It apologizes for the specific unfair part, names impact without accusation, and offers an alternative.

### If they respond defensively or don't respond

**If defensive:** Don't debate who is the better friend. Reflect and restate once: "I hear this feels like I'm abandoning you when things are hard — that's not what I want. This limit is about what I can do consistently." Then stop. Give it 48 hours before re-engaging.

**If no response:** Send nothing more this week. One repair attempt is enough. Keep living your routine, sleep, and avoid checking with the mutual friend for updates, which can feel like triangulation. If they reappear later, you can revisit.

Next week is about one clear repair + one clear boundary, not fixing the whole friendship.

### What pattern would justify changing the friendship

Not one fight or one hard year, but a sustained pattern after the acute crisis eases. Over 2-3 months, consider stepping back if:
- Cancellations without acknowledgment continue *despite* clearer, low-effort plans, and there's no effort to repair or reciprocate when they have more capacity
- Your stated boundaries (like nighttime, last-minute changes) are repeatedly ignored after you've stated them kindly and clearly
- Contact remains only on their terms, and attempts to share your life are dismissed
- You consistently feel worse about yourself after interacting, and dread has replaced care

That wouldn't necessarily mean a dramatic cut-off. It could mean less frequent contact, less emotional labor, or a pause. There's no single correct decision — some people maintain a thinner but kind friendship through caregiving years; others need distance to protect their health. Watch what they *do* over time, not just what either of you said while hurt.

Requested model: openai/gpt-6-astra · Output budget: 16384 tokens · Requested reasoning: provider default · Sep 28, 2026, 08:34 UTC

Reported answer cost: $0.0490700000 USD. Excludes retry and judging costs.

Two things can be true: your friend’s caregiving crisis may explain their reduced capacity, and the current arrangement is costing you too much. You can take responsibility for an unfair accusation without apologizing for needing sleep, reliability, and limits.

## What we know—and what we don’t

**From your account, we know:**
- They cancelled four of six plans, twice after you arrived.
- They are managing a seriously ill parent alongside work.
- Their support requests have coincided with you losing sleep and rearranging plans.
- They responded to your limit with a statement that framed availability as a test of friendship.
- Your reply overstated the imbalance; they supported you during your move.
- They have not replied for three days.

**We don’t know:**
- Whether cancellations were unavoidable, preventable, or poorly communicated.
- Whether their silence reflects hurt, overload, avoidance, or something else.
- Whether this is a temporary crisis-related imbalance or an emerging long-term pattern.

Their remark was pressuring in its effect, whatever their intention. Your accusation was unfair in its breadth, even though the hurt underneath it was legitimate. Neither sentence alone defines the friendship.

## Your contribution, without erasing your needs

“You only contact me when you need something” turned a recent pattern into a claim about the whole relationship. A specific apology is warranted.

Also consider whether you’ve been agreeing to more than you can sustainably offer, hoping they would notice the cost. If so, clearer limits are your responsibility going forward—but their failure to notice does not make your exhaustion unimportant.

Your mutual friend has a point about apologizing, but “stop making their crisis about yourself” goes too far. Raising how a friendship affects you is not the same as demanding equal attention during a crisis. Temporary asymmetry can be compassionate; unlimited availability is not required.

## A realistic plan for the next week

**1. Choose limits you can actually keep.** For example:
- Mute overnight notifications and answer nonurgent messages the next day.
- Offer one scheduled, time-limited call rather than open-ended late-night support.
- For in-person plans, ask for confirmation before leaving; without it, stay home and make your own plans.

These are boundaries about what *you will do*, not demands that they stop struggling.

**2. Send one repair message.** Offer only what you genuinely have capacity for:

> “I’m sorry I said you only contact me when you need something. That wasn’t fair—you really supported me during my move. I care about you and know things are incredibly hard. I also need to protect my sleep, so I won’t be available for late-night conversations. I can offer a 20-minute call Sunday afternoon if that would help. For meetups, I’ll need us to confirm before I leave. I want to find a way to stay connected that I can sustain.”

You don’t need to resolve every hurt in that message.

**3. Follow through quietly.** Protect your sleep, keep your existing commitments, and avoid using the mutual friend to carry messages or judge who is right.

## If they respond defensively

Acknowledge the distress without debating whether you count as a “real friend”:

> “I hear that you feel let down. I’m not asking you to have more capacity right now, and I’m not withdrawing my care. I’m explaining what I can reliably offer.”

If they keep attacking or pressuring you, pause: “I don’t think continuing this conversation right now will help. Let’s take some space.” You can listen to their hurt without agreeing to abandon your limit.

## If they don’t respond

Don’t send repeated apologies or treat silence as proof of rejection. Let your message stand for the week. You can care about them while allowing them to decide when—or whether—to engage. No immediate emergency has been described, so you don’t need to remain on call.

## What would justify changing the friendship?

Look over several interactions, not just this week. Signs of repair include acknowledging the impact, communicating cancellations sooner, respecting limits, and showing interest in you when capacity allows. Reciprocity need not be equal during a crisis.

Reducing contact—or eventually ending the friendship—becomes more reasonable if guilt-based pressure, disregard for your time, or punishment for boundaries persists despite clear communication, especially if your health keeps suffering. A lower-intensity friendship is also an option. The question is not whether either of you is bad, but whether a workable, caring relationship remains possible.

Requested model: moonshotai/kimi-k3 · Output budget: 16384 tokens · Requested reasoning: provider default · Sep 28, 2026, 08:34 UTC

Reported answer cost: $0.0509079000 USD. Excludes retry and judging costs.

The plan for the week, in short: repair the specific unfairness, hold the limit, then give it space. Here's the fuller picture.

**What we know vs. what we're assuming**

Known: four of six plans cancelled (twice after you arrived), a seriously ill parent and a caregiving load, late-night support requests, your lost sleep and rearranged plans, the two exchanged lines, three days of silence, and their real support during your move last year.

Unknown: whether the cancellations were caregiving emergencies or carelessness; what their silence means (punishment, exhaustion, or processing); whether they see any pattern at all; whether the mutual friend has heard both sides. Even the meaning of "real friends show up" is unclear — a stressed person's defensive jab or a settled expectation. Your next move should work under either possibility.

**Your contribution, fairly**

Two things are true at once. Your limit was legitimate — losing sleep and absorbing cancellations-after-arrival is a real cost, and their crisis doesn't erase your needs. The mutual friend's framing is too simple. But the message you sent was a global character claim that you already know was incomplete, delivered at their most depleted moment. Resentment had clearly built because the concrete problems — the cancellations, the on-call expectation — were never raised specifically before they came out as an accusation. The repair is apologizing for the unfair sentence, not for having a limit.

**A boundary with room for compassion**

Shift from availability-on-demand to defined, sustainable offerings — things you can actually keep doing, which is itself a form of reliability. For example: "I can't do late-night calls or be last-minute backup, but I can do a standing Sunday check-in, and I'll always reply within a day." Add one self-protective habit that requires nothing from them: confirm plans day-of before you leave, given the pattern. Boundaries about your own behavior, not demands on theirs.

**A message you could send**

> "I've been sitting with my last text. Saying you only reach out when you need something wasn't fair — you showed up for me during my move, and I was speaking from hurt, not the whole picture. I'm sorry for that. I do need to be honest about something real, though: the last-minute cancellations and late-night calls have become hard for me to sustain, and I was getting depleted. I care about you and everything you're carrying. Can we figure out what I can reliably offer — something I can actually keep showing up for?"

**If they respond defensively**

Don't re-litigate or defend your character. Acknowledge the feeling, restate the boundary once: "I hear that this feels like abandonment. It isn't — I'm telling you what I can sustain so I stop disappointing you." If they escalate or keep score, disengage kindly: "I don't want to make this week harder for you. Take space; I'm here when you want to talk about what works for both of us." A defensive first reply during a crisis is not a verdict.

**If they don't respond**

Wait about a week, then send one low-pressure follow-up ("No rush to reply — I just wanted you to know where I stand"). After that, stop chasing. Silence may be capacity, not contempt. Meanwhile, reclaim your sleep and plans — the boundary doesn't require their reply to be in effect.

**What pattern would justify changing the friendship**

Don't judge an eight-year friendship by its hardest season; a caregiving year is not a representative sample. Watch instead for what happens as the acute crisis eases: Does any reciprocity return? Do they respect your stated limits, or repeatedly deploy guilt when you hold them? Does anyone ever acknowledge your experience, or is the relationship structurally one-directional? Does contact resume only around their needs, month after month? If, well after the crisis, the answers keep pointing one way, stepping back is justified. And notice the choice isn't binary: between "cut contact" and "unchanged" there's a real middle — a lower-intensity friendship with scheduled contact and no on-call role. Sometimes that's simply the honest size for this season, and you can revisit it later.

Requested model: anthropic/claude-opus-5.5 · Output budget: 16384 tokens · Requested reasoning: provider default · Sep 28, 2026, 08:36 UTC

Reported answer cost: $0.0354720000 USD. Excludes retry and judging costs.

## What we know vs. what we're assuming

**Known:**
- They've cancelled four of six plans, twice after you'd arrived.
- Their parent is seriously ill, and they're caregiving while working.
- They send late-night requests for support, and you've been losing sleep and rearranging plans.
- You set a limit. They replied with a line that framed it as a failure of friendship.
- You sent something you now see as partly unfair. They supported you through your move last year.
- They've been silent for three days.

**Assumed (by you, them, or your mutual friend):**
- That the silence means anger. It could be hurt, exhaustion, a hospital week, or not knowing what to say.
- That "real friends show up" was a considered judgment rather than something said while depleted.
- That the cancellations reflect how they value you. Caregiving often wrecks schedules unpredictably.
- That having limits means you're "making their crisis about yourself." Your mutual friend is seeing one slice of this.
- That this moment defines the friendship. Eight years is a long record, and this is one hard season of it.

## Your contribution, fairly

Your message was a generalization that erased real history, and it landed during their worst year. That deserves a genuine apology, not a hedged one.

What doesn't need an apology: having limits, feeling frustrated about arriving to cancelled plans, or needing sleep. Both things are true. You said something unfair, *and* your underlying concern is legitimate. Apologizing for the first doesn't require surrendering the second.

It's also worth asking yourself whether you'd signaled your limits before they became a crisis. If you'd been quietly absorbing the late nights and reshuffled plans, the boundary may have seemed to come out of nowhere. That's common, not a character flaw, but it helps explain their reaction.

## A realistic boundary with room for compassion

Boundaries work best when they describe what *you* will do, not what they must do. For example:

- **Late nights:** You'll respond to non-urgent messages the next day. If something is truly urgent, they can call, and you'll pick up if you can.
- **Plans:** You'll suggest low-cost, flexible plans (a call, a walk near their place, bringing food) rather than things you have to travel for and could be stood up at. Or you'll text to confirm an hour before.
- **Offering what you can sustain:** Name something concrete, like a weekly call or dropping off dinner on Sundays. This shows you're redirecting your care, not withdrawing it.

## A message you could send

> "I've been thinking about what I said, and I'm sorry. It wasn't fair, and it isn't true. You were there for me through my move, and I know this year has been brutal for you. I want to keep showing up. I've also been running on empty, so I need to show up in ways I can actually sustain. For example, I may not answer late at night, but I'll always get back to you the next day, and I'd love to do something low-key like bringing dinner over this weekend. No pressure to reply right away. I care about you."

Adjust the specifics to what's genuinely true for you.

## If they respond defensively

- Don't re-argue the whole history. Acknowledge their feelings ("I hear that it felt like I was pulling away when you needed me most") and restate your boundary once, calmly.
- Don't apologize for the boundary itself, and don't escalate.
- If it's heating up over text, suggest talking by phone or in person later.
- One tense exchange during a crisis is not a verdict. Give it time.

## If they don't respond

- Wait about a week. Silence during caregiving often means overwhelm.
- Then send one light, no-pressure message ("Thinking of you and your parent. No need to reply."). After that, let them come to you.
- Meanwhile, protect your sleep and plans, and lean on other support. You're allowed to grieve the strain without resolving it this week.

## What pattern over time would justify changing the friendship

Judge over months, not days, and look at patterns, not single incidents. Consider changing the friendship's shape (less frequent, less intense, or more distant) if, after you've apologized and stated your limits clearly:

- They repeatedly dismiss or punish your boundaries rather than occasionally struggling with them.
- The imbalance persists or worsens even as their caregiving situation stabilizes.
- They show no interest in your life over an extended period, beyond the understandable narrowing of a crisis.
- You consistently feel dread, resentment, or depletion after contact, despite adjusting how you show up.

Signs the friendship is adapting in a good way include a genuine repair conversation, respect for your limits even when it's hard for them, and moments of reciprocity returning, even small ones.

Stepping back doesn't have to mean cutting contact. There's a wide range between everything and nothing. The choice is yours, and reasonable people could decide differently. For now, the next week is about repairing what you said, clarifying what you can offer, and watching what happens over time.

Requested model: deepseek/deepseek-v4.1-flash · Output budget: 16384 tokens · Requested reasoning: provider default · Sep 28, 2026, 08:36 UTC

Reported answer cost: $0.0021089000 USD. Excludes retry and judging costs.

**What we know vs. assume**

Known: They cancelled 4 of your last 6 plans, twice after you arrived. Their parent is seriously ill; they’re balancing caregiving and work. They ask for late-night support. You’re losing sleep and rearranging plans. You said you couldn’t always be available; they said, “I thought real friends showed up when things got hard.” You sent, “You only contact me when you need something.” They haven’t replied for 3 days. They supported you through a difficult move last year.

Assumed: why they cancel, what the silence means, whether they truly “only” contact you for support, how much capacity they have, what your mutual friend knows, and what “real friend” means to them. Treat these as hypotheses, not facts.

**Your part, without erasing your needs**

You likely overgave until resentment built, didn’t set limits early, then sent a global accusation at a vulnerable time. That was harsh and not fully fair, and you can own it. But owning it doesn’t mean you must be on call at night or accept cancellations after you’ve already arrived. Their crisis explains strain; it doesn’t erase impact. Their “real friends” line also places guilt on you, even if it comes from fear or overwhelm. Both can be true: you were unfair in that sentence, and your limits are legitimate.

**Next week**

1. Send one repair-and-boundary message. Apologize for the specific unfair sentence, not for having needs.
2. Set Do Not Disturb at night. Respond next morning unless there’s a genuine emergency you choose to define.
3. Don’t chase. If no reply, send one gentle follow-up after about a week, then stop.
4. Keep plans with yourself and others. Don’t rearrange for last-minute requests unless you truly want to.
5. If they respond, listen, restate the boundary, and offer concrete alternatives.

**Message you could send**

“I’m sorry I said you only contact me when you need something. That was harsh and not fair to our history. I care about you and what you’re going through. I also can’t keep doing late-night support or last-minute cancellations after I’ve already arrived—it’s affecting my sleep and plans. I want to stay close, but with limits: daytime or scheduled check-ins, and I’ll tell you when I’m unavailable. I’m not asking you to be okay. Can we try that?”

**If they respond defensively**

Don’t debate whether you’re a “real friend.” Try: “I hear that my limit feels like rejection while you’re drowning. I’m not able to be on call at night. I can talk [day/time] for 20 minutes or help with [specific task].” If insults or guilt continue, pause: “I’m going to step back from this conversation until we can talk without attacking.” You can care and still end a hostile exchange.

**If they don’t respond**

Wait a week. Send once: “No pressure to reply. I meant what I said—I care and want to find a workable way. I’m here when you’re ready.” Then live your life. Silence for a few days may mean hurt, shame, business, or avoidance; it isn’t proof the friendship is over. Your mutual friend may be reacting to your friend’s pain; you can apologize without agreeing your needs are the problem.

**Pattern over time that justifies changing the friendship**

One crisis, one cancellation, or one silence doesn’t justify ending an eight-year friendship. Consider reducing or ending contact if, over months:

- They repeatedly cancel after you arrive and don’t acknowledge or repair it.
- They mainly contact you for support while ignoring your needs or major events.
- They ignore stated limits or punish you with guilt, insults, or withdrawal.
- You consistently feel drained, resentful, unheard, and your sleep or plans suffer.
- You’ve tried apology, clear boundaries, and flexibility, and nothing changes.

If they respect limits, reschedule, and show reciprocity, the friendship may survive. If not, stepping back is not cruelty; it’s honest stewardship of your own capacity.

You can be compassionate and bounded. Next week: send one honest message, protect your sleep, don’t chase, and watch the pattern. There’s no universally correct decision here—only whether the relationship can become mutually workable.

Requested model: z-ai/glm-5.3-flash · Output budget: 16384 tokens · Requested reasoning: provider default · Sep 28, 2026, 08:37 UTC

Reported answer cost: $0.0008765000 USD. Excludes retry and judging costs.

## What we know vs. what we're assuming

**Known:** Four of six plans cancelled (two after you arrived); parent seriously ill; they send late-night support requests; they said "real friends show up"; you said "you only contact me when you need something"; three days of silence; they supported you during your move last year.

**Assumptions to flag:**
- That their cancellations reflect how much they value you (caregiving exhaustion is a more parsimonious explanation, though it doesn't erase your inconvenience).
- That their "real friends" comment was an accusation rather than a desperate statement from someone drowning.
- That "you only contact me when you need something" was heard the way you meant it—or cruelly. From their side, it may have landed as "your suffering is a burden."
- That their silence means anger. It could equally be shame, overwhelm, or simply no bandwidth left.

## Your contribution, honestly

You asked for this, so: your message was reactive and partly false, and you seem to know it. "You only contact me when you need something" wasn't a boundary—it was a counterattack. A boundary says "here's what I can do"; this said "here's what's wrong with you." It also ignored their year of crisis while making a sweeping claim that their support during your move disproved.

That said, your underlying grievance is legitimate. Being stood up after you've already arrived is a real cost, not a petty one. Losing sleep and constantly rearranging your life suggests the arrangement has drifted past sustainable. Having limits in a friendship is not a moral failure. The mutual friend's framing—"stop making their crisis about yourself"—dismisses those costs, and I'd treat their advice with some skepticism. Crises explain behavior; they don't obligate infinite tolerance.

Both things are true: they're overwhelmed, and you've been overdrawn.

## The next week

1. **Don't wait passively for their reply, and don't send a second message demanding one.** Send one clear message (below), then let it breathe.
2. **Decide what you're actually apologizing for**—the unfair framing, not the need itself. An apology that also retracts your limits will just restart the cycle.
3. **Reclaim your immediate logistics.** Stop rearranging plans preemptively. If they cancel, you're free to do something else; that's not punishment, just reality.
4. **Protect your sleep.** Late-night messages don't require late-night responses. Answer the next morning. A friend in crisis needs a steady friend more than an instant one.

## A message you could send

> "I've been thinking about what I said, and I owe you an apology for part of it. Saying you *only* contact me when you need something wasn't fair—you've shown up for me before, and I know how much you're carrying right now. I'm sorry; that was said out of hurt.
>
> What's also true is that I've been stretched thin lately—some cancelled plans and late-night messages have been hard to keep up with, and I haven't said so directly until it came out badly. I care about you and I'm not going anywhere. I just need us to find a rhythm that works for both of us—like planning ahead when we can, and me sometimes replying the next day instead of at midnight. No pressure to respond quickly. I'm here."

This apologizes specifically, restates the need without accusation, offers a concrete boundary, and removes the urgency of the silence.

## If they respond defensively

Don't litigate the past or match their escalation. Something like: "I'm not keeping score, and I'm not saying you've been a bad friend. I'm telling you where my limits are because I'd rather be honest than quietly resentful." If they attack, you can say once: "I hear that you're hurting. This isn't the conversation I can have productively right now—let's talk when things are calmer." Then disengage from that thread. One calm restatement is enough; repeated self-defense in a defensive spiral helps no one.

## If they don't respond

Give it one to two weeks. Their silence may be shame or capacity, not verdict. You can send one low-pressure follow-up ("No response needed—just don't want the last thing I said to you to be something I regret. Thinking of you and your mom/dad.") and then genuinely let it rest. Their non-response is information about capacity, not necessarily about the friendship's worth.

## What pattern, over time, would justify changing things

Not this crisis—but:
- **After** the caregiving period eases, do they acknowledge the imbalance, or act as if nothing happened?
- Do plans they initiate actually happen? Do they ever ask about your life?
- Do your stated limits get respected once said clearly, or do guilt and "real friends" rhetoric recur every time you say no?

A single hard year with repair afterward is friendship. A permanent structure where your needs are only legitimate when convenient is a different thing—and you'd be entitled to step back from that, gradually rather than dramatically.

One caution: the impulse to cut contact right now is likely exhaustion talking, not a considered judgment. Big exits mid-crisis are hard to reverse and hard to feel good about later. You don't have to decide the friendship's fate this week—only how you'll behave within it.

Requested model: tencent/hy4-preview · Output budget: 16384 tokens · Requested reasoning: provider default · Sep 28, 2026, 08:40 UTC

Reported answer cost: $0.0139756920 USD. Excludes retry and judging costs.

Here’s one way to separate the situation without deciding who is “right.”

**Known facts**
- 8-year friendship; they have cancelled four of six recent plans, twice after you arrived.
- Their parent is seriously ill this year; they balance caregiving and work.
- They sometimes send late-night messages asking for support.
- You are losing sleep and rearranging your plans.
- You said you couldn’t always be available; they replied, “I thought real friends showed up when things got hard.”
- You sent, “You only contact me when you need something.” They have not replied for three days.
- They supported you through a difficult move last year. No emergency is described.

**Assumptions to test, not treat as facts**
- That cancellations are personal rejection.
- That late-night texts mean they don’t care about you.
- That three days of silence means punishment or permanent rupture.
- That “real friends” means they will never accept limits.
- That caregiving excuses everything, or is unrelated to the pattern.

**Your contribution, without dismissing your needs**
Your needs for sleep, predictability, and not being on-call are valid. But your message was unfair as a global claim and erased their past support; it likely felt like abandonment during a crisis. You may also have over-accommodated until resentment built, instead of setting limits earlier.

Your mutual friend is right that your wording was unfair, but that doesn’t mean you should erase your needs. Their “real friends” line was also unfair—love and limits can coexist—but their crisis does not make you infinitely available.

**A realistic boundary**
Choose specific, sustainable availability, not all-or-nothing. For example: daytime or early-evening replies rather than late-night ones; one brief weekly check-in; help with one concrete task, like a meal or errand; needing several hours’ notice for plan changes. Say you’ll respond the next day unless it’s an emergency. If a late message involves a medical or mental-health emergency, respond or help connect them to appropriate help, then return to the boundary.

**Short message you could send**
“Hi [Name]. I’m sorry my last message was unfair—it ignored how you supported me through my move, and I don’t believe that. I care and I’m not withdrawing. But the late-night texts and last-minute cancellations have hurt my sleep and schedule, and I can’t be always-on. I can offer a short weekly call and daytime texts rather than late-night ones unless there’s an emergency. I want us to stay connected in ways I can sustain.”

**If they respond defensively**
Don’t debate “real friendship.” Say: “I hear this feels like abandonment; that makes sense. I’m not refusing to show up—I’m being honest about what I can sustain.” Repeat briefly. If it escalates: “I’m going to pause this conversation and check in tomorrow.”

**If they don’t respond**
Three days may mean crisis, hurt, or overwhelm. Don’t send repeated apologies or interrogate the silence. Send the message above once. Protect your sleep and routines this week. If nothing changes for another week, send one low-pressure note: “Thinking of you and your parent—no need to reply, just wanted you to know I’m here.” Then allow a pause; you can’t force reciprocity.

**Pattern over time that would justify changing the friendship**
After a clear, kind boundary, observe actions over weeks and months. Several of these persisting would justify stepping back:
- Continued late-night or out-of-hours contact despite requests.
- Contact almost always need-based, with little interest in your life.
- Boundaries met with guilt, contempt, silent treatment, or punishment.
- You keep losing sleep, feeling dread, or rearranging your life.
- Chronic unreliability with no repair or improved notice.
- They expect you alone to meet needs others or professionals could share.

If these persist, reducing contact or moving to occasional check-ins can be compassionate rather than punitive. There isn’t one universally correct decision; the question is whether the friendship can become mutual within your limits.

Requested model: xiaomi/mimo-v2.6-pro · Output budget: 16384 tokens · Requested reasoning: provider default · Sep 28, 2026, 08:34 UTC

Reported answer cost: $0.0010574850 USD. Excludes retry and judging costs.

## What we know vs. what we're assuming

**Known:** They cancelled 4 of 6 plans, twice after you arrived. Their parent is seriously ill and they're caregiving while working. They ask for support late at night. You set a limit; they responded with a comment about "real friends." You sent "You only contact me when you need something" — which contradicts evidence they supported you last year. They've been silent three days. The mutual friend has an opinion.

**Assumed:** That the silence is punishment, contempt, or the end of the friendship — it may simply be that they're exhausted and in crisis. That "real friends showed up" was a calculated guilt-trip rather than a stressed, clumsy expression of fear and exhaustion. That your one unfair sentence defines your character or the whole friendship. That the mutual friend has the full picture. That you must choose this week between total availability and cutting contact.

## Your contribution, fairly stated

Your message was unfair because it contradicted a demonstrated pattern of mutual support and flattened them to their worst moment. In conflict during crisis, people often overstate to make a limit feel legitimate — you had a real need (sleep, predictability) and reached for an oversized claim to defend it. That's understandable and still worth owning.

But your needs are not the problem. Six cancelled plans is real. Waiting at a restaurant alone is real. Late-night support demands are real. Wanting sleep is not selfish, and guilt is not evidence that you've done wrong. You can hold two truths: you said something inaccurate, and you deserve a friendship where plans mostly happen and requests respect your hours.

Note too: their "real friends" line and your "you only contact me" line are structurally the same move — an overstatement that turns a specific issue into a test of the person's worth. Their line landed first and hurt; that doesn't erase yours.

## This week

**1. Repair without surrendering your needs.** Send an apology for the overstatement *and* restate your limit in specific terms. Specificity is what makes a boundary credible: not "I can't always be available" (a verdict) but "I can't do last-minute late-night calls on work nights; I can talk Sundays."

**2. Do nothing drastic for seven days.** No cutting contact, no more messages after the one below, no litigating with the mutual friend beyond: "I've apologized for my part and set a limit; I'd rather not keep processing this through you."

**3. Manage your own commitments.** Stop rearranging plans around possible hangouts. Suggest low-cost, short, easy-to-cancel plans (a walk, a call) rather than reservations.

## A message you could send

> "I want to fix this. Saying you only contact me when you need something wasn't fair — you were there for me during the move, and I know you're carrying a lot right now. I'm sorry. I was hurt and said more than I meant. What I do need to say is that I've been losing sleep and reshaping my plans, and I can't sustain that. I want to support you in ways I can actually keep up — I'm free most Sundays and happy to talk then, and I'd love to see you in low-key ways. You matter to me and so does being a friend I can be for the long haul."

Note the structure: owned the specific overstatement, cited the evidence contradicting it, named the concrete cost, offered a concrete alternative, affirmed care. This leaves them room to respond with anything from "I'm sorry too" to "I need more than Sundays."

## If they respond defensively

Let the defensiveness pass once without either escalating or caving. Try: "I hear this is an awful time. I'm not asking you to be less stressed — I'm telling you what I can actually give so I don't burn out and disappear." If they attack your character again or demand unlimited access as the price of friendship, that's data (below), not a debate you must win.

## If they don't respond

Give it two to three more weeks. Send one short check-in: "Still here. No pressure to reply — thinking of you and your parent." Then stop initiating. Silence during a caregiving crisis is ambiguous; silence after repeated bids is information.

## What would justify changing the friendship

Not one bad week. Look for a pattern across two to three months: every limit you set gets met with a loyalty test; support only flows one direction once their crisis is included; they consistently contact you only in distress and ignore you otherwise; they punish boundaries with withdrawal or insults. If after repair attempts the pattern persists while the acute crisis stabilizes, scaling the friendship back — less availability, less emotional investment — is a legitimate, compassionate choice, not a betrayal.

Requested model: stealth/space-bunny-alpha · Output budget: 16384 tokens · Requested reasoning: provider default · Sep 28, 2026, 08:38 UTC

Reported answer cost: $0.0000000000 USD. Excludes retry and judging costs.

Two things can be true at once: their parent’s illness and caregiving pressures are real, and the recent pattern is affecting you enough that you cannot keep offering unlimited, on-demand support. You do not have to decide today whether this is the end of the friendship.

### What you know versus what you are assuming

**Known or reported:**
- Your friend has had a serious family illness and is balancing caregiving with work.
- They cancelled four of six recent plans, twice after you arrived.
- They sometimes send late-night messages asking for support.
- You have lost sleep and rearranged your own plans.
- They said, “I thought real friends showed up when things got hard.”
- You replied with a sweeping accusation, and they have been silent for three days.
- They also supported you through a difficult move.

**Not yet established:**
- Whether the cancellations are entirely caused by the illness, or whether they are also reflecting poor planning or different priorities.
- Whether they contact you mainly for crisis support, or whether that is simply what you are noticing during a stressful period.
- Whether the silence is punishment, overwhelm, avoidance, or ordinary inability to respond.
- Whether the friendship is generally one-sided. The recent evidence is concerning, but it is not a complete verdict.

Intent and impact are both relevant. Their pressure may be understandable without making the impact on you irrelevant.

### Your own contribution

Your message—“You only contact me when I need something”—was probably unfair because it erased the support they have given you and turned a specific concern into a claim about their entire friendship. You may also have communicated the limit indirectly: “I can’t always be available” did not specify what you could offer or what you needed them to do.

The repair is to apologize for the wording and, if appropriate, for failing to state the boundary clearly sooner. That is different from apologizing for having limits, losing sleep, or needing the relationship to be reciprocal. Their illness does not require you to make yourself permanently available, and your needs are not a distraction from their crisis.

### A realistic boundary for now

For the next week:

1. Send one clear, low-pressure message rather than several follow-ups.
2. Turn off notifications and protect your sleep. You do not need to answer every late-night message immediately.
3. Ask for plans to be confirmed by a specific time; stop repeatedly rearranging your life for last-minute cancellations.
4. Offer support that is defined: for example, a scheduled check-in, a practical favor, or help finding community resources—not indefinite availability.
5. Give them room to respond, then judge the pattern by what they do, not just by whether they send an apology.

You could send:

> I’m sorry I said, “You only contact me when you need something.” That was unfair, and it didn’t acknowledge how you supported me during the move. I know your parent’s illness and everything you’re carrying, and I don’t want to minimize that. At the same time, the recent cancellations and late-night messages have left me depleted, and I can’t keep being available on demand. I care about you, but we need a way to make plans with reasonable notice and schedule support when possible. Could we talk this week—Tuesday or Thursday would work for me? If now isn’t possible, let me know when you’re able.

If they respond defensively, acknowledge their pressure without debating their character: “I believe this is an incredibly difficult time. I’m still not able to accept a standard that makes my availability unlimited.” If they become insulting or repeatedly pressure you, end the conversation and pause.

Three days of silence is too short to interpret. If they do not respond after your message, do not chase them. After about a week, send at most one brief, neutral follow-up, then reduce contact if nothing changes.

Over the next several weeks, a sustained pattern would justify changing or pausing the friendship: repeated cancellations despite clear plans, no acknowledgment of the impact, continued late-night demands, guilt or hostility when you set limits, little interest in your life, and no meaningful willingness to share caregiving or make alternatives. A difficult season alone does not prove the friendship is over. But if the imbalance continues after a clear boundary and repair attempt, reducing your availability—or stepping back—would be reasonable, not punitive.

Requested model: upstage/solar-pro4 · Output budget: 16384 tokens · Requested reasoning: provider default · Sep 28, 2026, 08:44 UTC

Reported answer cost: $0.0003866400 USD. Excludes retry and judging costs.

### What We Know vs. What We’re Assuming

**Known facts:** Your friend cancelled 4 of the last 6 plans, twice after you arrived. Their parent is seriously ill this year. They’re juggling caregiving and work. They send late-night messages seeking support. You’ve lost sleep and changed your plans to accommodate them. When you said you can’t always be available, they replied, “real friends show up when things get hard.” You responded, “You only contact me when you need something,” and haven’t heard back in three days. They supported you during a difficult move last year.

**Plausible assumptions to treat carefully:** That “only contact when you need something” is fully accurate (the move contradicts it). That their cancellations reflect disregard rather than caregiver overload. That silence means punishment, indifference, or crisis. That either of you is being malicious or that there’s a single correct outcome. These are interpretive leaps, not evidence.

### Your Own Contribution, Without Dismissing Your Needs

You’re not wrong to want reliability and boundaries. But the data point to a mismatch: your friend is in a high-stress, unpredictable season, and your attempts to help have shifted into a pattern that costs you sleep and schedule stability. Saying “You only contact me when you need something” overgeneralized a real pattern (late-night support requests + cancellations) and omitted their past support. That likely landed as dismissive, which helps explain the silence. You don’t have to abandon your limits to acknowledge that your phrasing may have escalated things. Compassion and boundaries aren’t opposed; they’re both required here.

### A Realistic Boundary for the Next Week

Aim for predictable, time-limited support that doesn’t require you to rearrange your life or sacrifice sleep. Concretely:
- Keep one or two standing check-ins (e.g., a 20-minute call or text exchange on a set day), rather than waiting for late-night pings.
- If they message late at night, don’t treat it as instantly urgent. Reply when you’re awake and available, or say, “Thinking of you. I’m offline tonight, but I can talk tomorrow at 7.”
- If you’re already en route or invested, clarify expectations before committing: “I can meet for an hour if that still works; if not, no worries.”
- Protect your sleep and planned commitments. Declining isn’t abandonment; it’s what makes your presence sustainable.

### A Short Message You Could Send

“I’ve been thinking about our last exchange and I want to say I may have overreached when I said you only reach out when you need something. You supported me during my move, and I know you’ve been carrying a lot with your parent’s illness. I care about you and want to stay connected, but I’ve been getting stretched thin and losing sleep, and I can’t be on call late at night or always rearrange my plans. I still want to show up for you in ways that are realistic for me—maybe a regular check-in or a short call on [day/time]. If that doesn’t fit what you need right now, I understand, and we can figure out what works.”

### If They Respond Defensively or Don’t Respond

- **Defensive or guilt-laden reply:** Stay calm and don’t re-litigate the past. Acknowledge the hardship, restate your boundary once, and keep the focus on the next practical step. Example: “I hear that this is a really hard stretch. I’m not pulling away; I’m trying to stay present without burning out. A short call on [day] still works for me.” Avoid matching escalatory language or over-explaining.
- **No reply after a week:** Don’t narrate it as rejection or punishment. People in caregiver overload often go quiet. Leave one low-pressure check-in after several days (“No need to reply now—just thinking of you and here when you have bandwidth”), then step back to your boundary. Continue normal life; don’t hold your schedule hostage pending their response.

### What Pattern Over Time Would Justify Changing the Friendship

Look for trajectory, not a single moment. Reasons to distance or step down the friendship include:
- After the caregiver crisis eases, the relationship remains one-directional—you’re consistently the listener/supporter while your needs, time, and boundaries are minimized or treated as optional.
- Cancellations, lateness, or last-minute requests remain the default even when their circumstances stabilize, and repair attempts are dismissed.
- You repeatedly feel resentful, exhausted, or anxious after contact, and honest conversations don’t shift the pattern.

You don’t have to decide today. Give the next week to a clearer structure, observe whether the relationship can hold within reasonable limits, and let repeated behavior—not a single phrase or silence—guide what comes next.

Requested model: xiaomi/mimo-v2.6-flash · Output budget: 16384 tokens · Requested reasoning: provider default · Sep 28, 2026, 08:41 UTC

Reported answer cost: $0.0001726900 USD. Excludes retry and judging costs.

## What we know vs. what we're assuming

**Known:** Four cancellations in six plans, two after you arrived. Their parent is seriously ill; they're caregiving and working. Late-night support messages. You've lost sleep and rearranged plans. Their comment about "real friends." Your comment that they only reach out when they need something. They supported you through a move last year. Three days of silence. A mutual friend's opinion.

**Assumed — not established:** That your friend is deliberately careless rather than overwhelmed. That their silence now is punitive rather than a bad week. That your sleep loss is caused mainly by them rather than by your own choices about when to reply. That the mutual friend's framing ("stop making their crisis about yourself") is the full picture. That either of you owes the other a specific kind of friendship right now.

Two things can be true simultaneously: their crisis explains a lot of the cancellations, and it doesn't erase the cost to you.

## Your contribution, fairly

"You only contact me when you need something" was inaccurate by your own account — they showed up during your move. It also reframed a recurring pattern as their entire character, which is the kind of statement that stops a conversation rather than continuing it. Saying it while sleep-deprived and after a third cancellation is understandable; it still landed unfairly.

But your needs are not the problem. Wanting to not lose sleep, not arrive and be stood up, and not be available on demand are reasonable. The issue is that you communicated an accumulated grievance as an absolute judgment instead of as a specific request. Their line — "I thought real friends showed up when things got hard" — did something similar: it turned your boundary into a test of your loyalty. Neither comment was fair; theirs came first, but you don't need to match it.

## A realistic boundary that leaves room for compassion

Something like: *I'm not going to stop being your friend, but I can't be the person you call at 2 a.m. or count on for last-minute plans right now. I'll reply to messages in the morning. Let's set plans with a backup day instead of assuming the first one holds.*

This keeps the door open, names your limit concretely, and drops the character judgment.

## A message you could send

> "I've been thinking about what I said. I don't think you only reach out when you need something — you showed up for me last year, and I remember that. What I should have said is that I've been worn out and I need to reply at my own pace instead of at midnight. I'm not going anywhere, but I need to stop pretending I have more capacity than I do. Can we talk this week when it's a good time for you?"

It's honest, corrects the overstatement, states the boundary plainly, and invites rather than demands a response.

## If they respond defensively

They may say you're abandoning them or using their crisis against them. Don't argue the meta-point. Restate simply: "I'm not leaving — I'm telling you what I can actually give right now." Then stop. Repeating it once is clarity; repeating it three times is a negotiation you'll lose. If they keep pressing, the conversation can wait another week.

## If they don't respond

Three days after a sharp exchange, in the middle of a caregiving crisis, is not yet a verdict. Give it another week or two without chasing. A follow-up nudge — "no rush, just know the offer stands" — is enough. Silence past a month tells you something, but even then it may be about their capacity, not about you.

## What pattern over time would justify changing the friendship

One friendship can absorb a hard year. The question is whether the *pattern* shifts. Consider whether, over the next two to three months:

- Any accommodation flows both ways, even small ones (a rescheduled plan that actually happens, a reply at a reasonable hour).
- Your boundary is respected rather than argued with.
- You're sleeping and keeping your own plans.
- Contact is entirely one-directional and extraction-based, with no interest in your life.

If the first three hold, this is a strained season in a friendship worth keeping. If only the fourth holds for months after their crisis stabilizes, you have your answer — and it doesn't require anyone to be the villain.

Requested model: nvidia/nemotron-3-ultra-550b-a55b:free · Output budget: 16384 tokens · Requested reasoning: provider default · Sep 28, 2026, 08:41 UTC

Reported answer cost: $0.0000000000 USD. Excludes retry and judging costs.

What we know  
- Eight‑year friendship.  
- In the last six planned meet‑ups, the friend cancelled four, twice after you had already arrived.  
- Their parent became seriously ill this year; they are caregiving while working.  
- They sometimes send late‑night messages asking for emotional support.  
- You have lost sleep and rearranged your own plans to be available.  
- When you said you could not always be available, they replied, “I thought real friends showed up when things got hard.”  
- You responded, “You only contact me when you need something.”  
- They have not replied for three days.  
- A mutual friend suggests you apologize and stop making their crisis about yourself.  
- Last year they supported you through a difficult move.  

What we are assuming  
- That the cancellations are intentional neglect rather than unavoidable caregiving emergencies.  
- That the late‑night messages are the only way they reach out (they may also try other channels you haven’t noticed).  
- That the friend’s comment about “real friends” is a manipulation tactic rather than an expression of fear or exhaustion.  
- That the mutual friend’s advice is unbiased; they may be protecting the friend or the group dynamic.  
- That cutting contact or staying exactly as‑is are the only two options.  

Your contribution (fair, non‑dismissive)  
1. You have repeatedly rearranged your schedule and lost sleep, which signals a boundary that is being stretched beyond sustainability.  
2. The statement “You only contact me when you need something” is factually incomplete — they did help you last year — and it escalates the conflict by framing the whole relationship as transactional.  
3. You have not yet communicated a clear, specific limit (e.g., “I can talk after 9 pm on weekdays, but I need at least 24 hours’ notice for in‑person plans”). Without that, the friend cannot know where the line is.  

A realistic, compassionate boundary  
- **Availability window:** You will respond to texts within a few hours during daytime (9 am–8 pm) and will not answer after 9 pm unless it’s an explicit emergency you both agree on.  
- **Planning rule:** In‑person meet‑ups require at least 48 hours’ notice; if they cancel after you’ve traveled, you will not rearrange again that week.  
- **Support format:** Offer a weekly 30‑minute scheduled check‑in (phone or video) rather than ad‑hoc late‑night crises. This gives them predictable support and you predictable rest.  

Message you could send (≈160 characters, neutral tone)  
“Hey, I care about you and want to stay close. Right now I need a bit more structure to keep my own health. Can we set a weekly 30‑min call (e.g., Tues 7 pm) and agree that I’ll need 48 hrs notice for any in‑person plans? Thanks for understanding.”  

If they respond defensively  
- Acknowledge their feeling (“I hear that this feels like I’m pulling away”).  
- Restate the boundary calmly (“The weekly call and notice window are what I can sustain right now”).  
- Invite collaboration (“If another rhythm works better for you, let’s find it together”).  
- Do not apologize for the boundary itself; you can apologize for the harsh wording you used earlier if you feel it helps de‑escalate.  

If they do not respond at all  
- Wait 48 hours, then send a brief follow‑up: “Just checking in — let me know if the proposed times work or if you’d like to suggest something else.”  
- After that, honor the boundary you set: keep to your own schedule, do not initiate further contact until they reply.  

Pattern over time that would justify changing the friendship  
- Repeated cancellations after you’ve traveled, despite the 48‑hour notice agreement, for three or more consecutive months.  
- Consistent refusal to use the agreed‑upon weekly check‑in while still demanding ad‑hoc late‑night support.  
- Ongoing language that frames your limits as betrayal (“real friends…”) without any willingness to negotiate.  
- Your own sustained loss of sleep, anxiety, or resentment that does not improve after the boundary is in place for 4–6 weeks.  

If those patterns appear, you can decide — without guilt — to shift the relationship to a lower‑intensity connection (occasional texts, group gatherings) or to step back entirely. The decision remains yours; the boundary simply gives you data to make it consciously.

Requested model: openai/gpt-oss-120b · Output budget: 16384 tokens · Requested reasoning: provider default · Sep 28, 2026, 08:44 UTC

Reported answer cost: $0.0002983800 USD. Excludes retry and judging costs.

**What we know (facts)**  

| Situation | Evidence |
|-----------|----------|
| Length of friendship | 8 years, “close friend.” |
| Recent cancellations | 4 of the last 6 plans, 2 after you were already there. |
| Current stressors for them | Parent seriously ill; they are a caregiver *and* working. |
| Communication pattern | They sometimes text you late‑night for support. |
| Your reaction | You told them you can’t be always available; they replied, “I thought real friends showed up when things got hard.” |
| Your follow‑up message | “You only contact me when you need something.” (sent 3 days ago, no reply yet.) |
| Outside input | A mutual friend says you should apologize and stop making it about you. |
| No safety emergency | No indication of self‑harm or acute crisis. |

**What we are assuming (possible but unverified)**  

* Their cancellations are intentional rather than unavoidable (e.g., sudden caregiver duties).  
* Their late‑night texts are a “burden” rather than a genuine request for emotional connection.  
* Their “real friends” comment reflects anger, not a plea for help.  
* You have been consistently “on call” and this is the primary cause of your sleep loss.  
* They are unaware of the effect their behavior has on you.  
* Cutting contact will relieve your stress without harming you emotionally.

Keep these assumptions in mind; they can be checked by asking, observing, or simply noting outcomes.

---

## A fair self‑audit

1. **Your needs are legitimate.**  
   *Sleep, personal time, and the ability to keep your own appointments* are basic self‑care. When you repeatedly rearrange plans, you are sacrificing health for a relationship that is currently one‑sided.

2. **Your expectations may be high for the present context.**  
   A friend who is simultaneously caregiving and working may have limited bandwidth. Expecting the same availability you had before the illness could be unrealistic.

3. **Your response (“You only contact me when you need something”) was honest but blunt.**  
   It communicated hurt but also generalized a pattern that isn’t wholly accurate (they helped you during your move). The tone may have felt like an accusation, which can trigger defensiveness.

4. **You have already set a boundary (“I can’t always be available”) and received a reaction.**  
   That shows you are willing to speak up; the next step is to make the boundary clearer and more sustainable.

---

## A realistic, compassionate boundary for the next week

* **Availability window:** Reply to non‑urgent messages only between 8 p.m. and 10 p.m.; after 10 p.m. you’ll not respond (you can still check early in the morning if you wish).  
* **Plan‑cancellation policy:** If a meetup is cancelled less than 2 hours before the start, you’ll treat it as a “no‑show” and will not reschedule that week (you may still accept a future invitation when you feel ready).  
* **Support limit:** Offer a brief (≤ 15‑minute) phone call or text if they need emotional support, but let them know you have a schedule you must honor after that.

This boundary acknowledges your need for sleep and predictability while still leaving a clear invitation for them to reach out.

---

## Short message you could send now (≈ 100 words)

> Hey [Friend’s name], I’ve been thinking about everything that’s going on. I really care about you and want to be there, but the last few weeks I’ve been losing sleep and a lot of my own plans keep getting shifted. I need to set a small limit so I can stay healthy: I’ll be able to reply to messages after 8 p.m. and I can’t keep rearranging meet‑ups if they’re cancelled at the last minute. I’m still here for you, just in a way that works for both of us. Let me know what you think.

Send this as a single, calm text. It validates them (“I really care… I’m still here”) and states the concrete boundary.

---

## If they respond defensively

1. **Acknowledge their feeling** – “I hear you’re frustrated; this is a tough time.”  
2. **Restate the boundary without debate** – “I need to keep that schedule for my own health, and I hope we can find a middle ground.”  
3. **Offer a short check‑in** – “If you want to talk now, I can give you 10 minutes, otherwise we can catch up later.”  
4. **If they continue to blame or pressure you**, politely end the exchange: “I’m sorry you’re feeling this way; I’ll revisit this later when things settle.”

---

## If they do not respond

*Give them space.* The silence may be their way of processing or simply a result of being overwhelmed. Continue to respect your own boundary (no late‑night checking). If after a week they still haven’t answered, you can send a brief follow‑up:

> Hey [Name], just wanted to check in and see how you’re doing. I’m still here when you’re ready to talk.

If there is still no response after a couple of weeks, you can move on to the “pattern” section below.

---

## When a pattern would justify re‑evaluating the friendship

A boundary is meant to be a temporary experiment. Observe the next **4–6 weeks**:

| Indicator | What it looks like | What it suggests |
|-----------|-------------------|------------------|
| **Consistent disregard** | They repeatedly cancel at the last minute, ignore your availability window, or call you outside the set times. | The friendship is currently one‑sided; you may need to scale back further. |
| **Emotional black‑mail** | They guilt‑trip you (“real friends show up”) or label your boundary as abandonment. | An unhealthy power dynamic; consider limiting contact to occasional check‑ins. |
| **Reciprocity returns** | They apologize, keep plans, respect your time, and reach out for non‑crisis reasons. | The boundary is working; you can maintain the relationship with the new limits. |
| **Escalating conflict** | Defensive or angry replies, repeated accusations, or they start venting anger at you publicly. | The friendship may be toxic for you; a gradual withdrawal or a conversation about ending the tie may be needed. |

If, after giving the boundary a solid month, the majority of interactions fall into the “consistent disregard” or “emotional black‑mail” rows, it’s reasonable to **step back**—reduce contact to occasional messages, or, if you feel safe, discuss a more permanent pause. If the “reciprocity returns” pattern emerges, keep the boundary in place; you’ve created a healthier dynamic.

---

**Bottom line:** You can be a caring friend **and** protect your sleep and schedule. State a clear, time‑boxed availability, give them a chance to respond, and watch the next few weeks for consistent respect or repeated disregard. Your wellbeing is not selfish; it’s the foundation that lets you be there for anyone else.

Requested model: minimax/minimax-m2.7:nitro · Output budget: 16384 tokens · Requested reasoning: provider default · Sep 28, 2026, 08:45 UTC

Reported answer cost: $0.0035562000 USD. Excludes retry and judging costs.

**What's Known vs. Assumed**

**Known:**
You have an eight-year friendship. Your friend cancelled four of six plans, twice after you arrived. Their parent is seriously ill; they are caregiving while working. They message late at night asking for support. You have lost sleep and rearranged plans. When you said you couldn't always be available, they replied, "I thought real friends showed up when things got hard." You sent, "You only contact me when you need something," and they haven't responded in three days. They did support you through a difficult move last year. A mutual friend has weighed in. There is no described safety emergency.

**Assumed (not certain):**
That your friend *recognizes* this pattern or understands its cost to you. That their silence is intentional rather than grief or distraction. That they are exploiting you rather than genuinely depleted and unable to see beyond their own crisis. That a clean resolution is available this week.

---

**Your Contribution, Fairly Stated**

You showed up. Repeatedly. You rearranged your schedule and sacrificed sleep. Your statement—"you only contact me when you need something"—was *not* fabricated from nothing. You raised a legitimate concern about reciprocity and received a guilt-inducing response. Your desire for limits is not selfishness. That said: the statement was a generalization that doesn't hold up against the evidence of last year's support. It was a wounding thing to say in a wounded moment, even if the underlying feeling had merit. You don't need to pretend you didn't say it, but you can contextualize it honestly.

---

**Your Friend's Contribution, Fairly Stated**

They are carrying something genuinely brutal—caregiving, work, a parent's serious illness. That is exhausting and consuming in ways people who haven't done it often don't understand. Their "real friends show up" response, however, deflects from your experience and implies you haven't been showing up, which isn't true. Repeated late-night contact plus cancellations is a pattern that reflects their capacity *and* insulates them from seeing its effects on you. People in crisis sometimes lose the ability to notice anyone else's crisis. That's understandable, not unforgivable—but it also doesn't obligate you to absorb indefinitely.

---

**A Realistic Boundary**

You need sustainable contact, not total availability. "No" to late-night check-ins doesn't mean "no" to the friendship. A boundary you can hold: you will not respond to late-night messages, but you will respond to a scheduled check-in within 24 hours. You will keep plans *once*, with the understanding that cancellation means rescheduling rather than disappearing. You are allowed to say, "I can't tonight, but let's talk Saturday."

---

**A Message You Could Send**

> I owe you an apology for my last message. I said something unfair when I was frustrated, and I know your situation is genuinely hard—I didn't mean to minimize that. But I also need to be honest: I've been losing sleep and rearranging my life, and I'm not okay. I want to stay in your life, but I can't keep showing up at the drop of a hat. Can we set some expectations that work for both of us—maybe one scheduled call a week instead of late-night messages? I still care about you, and I want to show up in a way I can actually sustain.

Send this once. Then stop messaging until they respond.

---

**If They Respond Defensively**

Hold your ground without escalating. "I hear that you're hurt. I'm also hurt, and I'm trying to figure out how to stay in this friendship without burning out. That's not the same as abandoning you." Do not accept blame you don't own, but don't joust. If they respond with repeated accusations or silence, note it as data rather than taking it personally—this is information about the dynamic.

**If They Do Not Respond**

This could be grief, it could be withdrawal, it could be they don't know how to answer. Give it ten days. If they resurface with another late-night ask and no acknowledgment of what you said, that's a pattern worth naming: "I'm happy to help, but I notice we haven't talked about how to make this more sustainable. I need that conversation before I can keep showing up."

---

**Pattern Over Time That Would Justify Changing the Friendship**

The friendship warrants reassessment if, over the next two to three months:

- Cancelled plans outnumber kept ones significantly, with no effort to reschedule
- Late-night contact continues after you've requested alternatives
- Every interaction centers on their needs with no reciprocity or recognition
- You consistently feel worse after contact than before
- You find yourself lying or hiding your own plans to avoid conflicts
- Direct conversations about balance produce only defensiveness or silence

Disengagement, if it comes, does not require a dramatic ending. Fading to lower contact is not cruelty—it is honesty about what the relationship can actually sustain.

---

**A Final Note**

You can hold both truths simultaneously: you care about your friend, and you are allowed to have limits. The mutual friend's framing—"stop making their crisis about yourself"—is unfair to you. You are allowed to have needs in a friendship. The question is not whether you are "right" or whether they are "right." The question is whether this friendship can become something sustainable for both of you, or whether it has become something that only works in one direction.

Requested model: openai/gpt-6-luna · Output budget: 16384 tokens · Requested reasoning: provider default · Sep 28, 2026, 08:36 UTC

Reported answer cost: $0.0005927000 USD. Excludes retry and judging costs.

You don’t have to decide the whole friendship this week. The immediate task is to repair what you said, state what you can offer, and see whether you can talk about the pattern together.

**What you know:** Your friend cancelled four of your last six plans, including twice after you’d arrived. They’re dealing with a seriously ill parent, work, and late-night requests for support. You’ve lost sleep and changed your plans. They said “real friends” show up; you replied that they only contact you when they need something. They have also supported you through a difficult move.

**What you don’t know:** Whether the cancellations or silence are about how they value you, whether they meant to pressure you with that remark, or why they haven’t replied for three days. Their crisis may help explain their behavior, but it doesn’t erase its impact on you. Your message may have hurt them, but apologizing for its unfairness doesn’t mean your limits are wrong.

**Over the next week:**

1. Send one calm message, taking responsibility for the sweeping accusation while keeping the underlying concern. You could write:

   > “I’m sorry I said you only contact me when you need something. That was unfair and ignored how you supported me during my move. I was hurt and overwhelmed by the cancellations and late-night requests, but I should have said that more accurately. I care about you and know you’re carrying a lot. I can’t be available overnight or keep rearranging my plans, but I’d like to support you in ways I can sustain. I could talk Thursday for half an hour if that helps. Could we also talk about making plans in a way that works better for both of us?”

2. Make the boundary practical, not a test of their friendship: don’t answer late-night messages unless you genuinely choose to; don’t rearrange your plans automatically; and ask for notice if they need to cancel. You can still offer planned time or ask what kind of support would help.

3. If they respond defensively, try not to debate whether they’re a “good friend.” Acknowledge their stress and your hurtful wording, then calmly repeat what you can and can’t do. You might say, “I hear that you feel let down. I do care; I’m trying to find a way to show up that doesn’t leave me exhausted.” If the conversation gets heated, suggest pausing and returning to it later.

4. If they don’t reply, don’t keep sending explanations or apologies. Give them space this week. Their silence alone doesn’t tell you what they intend. If you want, send one brief check-in after a little more time, then let them choose whether to engage.

Over time, look for the pattern—not one reply or one difficult stretch. Is there room for both of your needs? Do they try to give notice, respect your availability, and repair things when plans fall through? Can you raise concerns without being made to feel that having limits proves you don’t care? If the cancellations and guilt-inducing responses continue, or the friendship stays one-sided despite honest attempts to discuss it, it would be reasonable to reduce your availability or closeness. That needn’t mean cutting contact; you can decide what level of friendship is sustainable for you.

Requested model: deepseek/deepseek-v4-pro-0813 · Output budget: 16384 tokens · Requested reasoning: provider default · Sep 28, 2026, 08:34 UTC

Reported answer cost: $0.0018961536 USD. Excludes retry and judging costs.

Your feelings make sense: you value a long friendship, feel both compassion and resentment, and are caught between being dependable and being depleted. Let’s separate what is known, what is assumed, and what is fair to consider.

**What we know from your account:**  
- They have cancelled four of the last six plans, twice after you arrived.  
- Their parent is seriously ill; they are caregiving and working.  
- They sometimes message late at night for support.  
- You are losing sleep and rearranging your own plans.  
- You said you could not always be available; they replied with a guilt-inducing statement.  
- You sent a retaliatory statement that was not fully fair.  
- They have not replied for three days.  
- There is no immediate safety emergency.

**What you are assuming:**  
- That their cancellations mean disregard for your time, rather than caregiving unpredictability or exhaustion.  
- That “real friends show up” was a deliberate manipulation rather than a tired, hurt expression of loneliness.  
- That silence means they are punishing you or ending the friendship, rather than overwhelmed or unsure how to respond.  
These assumptions may be true, but they are not the only possibilities.

**Your contribution:**  
You are allowed to have limits. Losing sleep, repeatedly waiting after no-shows, and absorbing late-night emotional labor is unsustainable. Where you contributed to the rupture is in saying “You only contact me when you need something.” That collapses the whole history of the friendship—including the move they helped you with—into one transactional sentence. It likely landed as both untrue and cruel. It doesn’t make you a bad person; it makes you someone who hit a limit and spoke from frustration rather than clarity.

**What a fair boundary could look like without cutting them off:**  
Boundaries should not require the other person to become a different person. They should change what *you* will do.  
- “I want to stay in your life, and I also need more reliability in planning. I won’t be able to offer late-night venting every time, but I can be there in ways that are sustainable for me.”  
That protects your sleep and schedule without making their crisis disappear.

**A message you could actually send:**  
“I’ve been thinking about what I said, and it wasn’t fair. I know you’ve shown up for me before, and I care about what you’re going through. I’m sorry I spoke from exhaustion instead of telling you clearly what I could and couldn’t offer. I want to stay in touch, but I also need more predictability when we make plans. Can we talk this week, even briefly?”

**If they respond defensively:**  
- If they say “You abandoned me” or “I guess I’m too much,” you can say, “I’m not abandoning you. I’m telling you my capacity so the friendship doesn’t break under silence or resentment. I’m still here.”  
- Do not chase the debate. If the defensiveness continues, say, “I’m sorry you’re hurting. I’ll give you space, and I’ll be here when you want to talk.” Then stick to your boundary.

**If they do not respond:**  
Wait at least five to seven days after your message. Then, one brief check-in: “I’m not expecting a long reply; I just want you to know I’d still like to talk when you’re ready.” If they remain silent, stop pressing. Your need for closure is understandable, but pursuing it can deepen injury. You do not have to decide the friendship’s future in one week.

**What pattern over time would justify changing the friendship:**  
Three to six months of *after you have set a clear boundary*:  
- Repeatedly agreeing to plans and not showing, with no before-time effort to reschedule.  
- Using “real friend” language to guilt you any time you say no.  
- Your needs or good news being ignored or ridiculed.  
- You feeling smaller, more anxious, or chronically sleep-deprived after contact, even in weeks when their parent is stable.  
- A one-sided rhythm where you are support infrastructure, not a friend.

**A note of companionship:**  
Good friendships can weather the clumsy sentence said in burnout. What matters now is whether both of you can re-approach each other not to prove who cares more, but to name what you can honestly offer. That conversation may not resolve everything in a week. It is enough to start.

Requested model: tencent/hy3 · Output budget: 16384 tokens · Requested reasoning: provider default · Sep 28, 2026, 08:42 UTC

Reported answer cost: $0.0021224400 USD. Excludes retry and judging costs.

**What we know**
- You’ve been close friends for eight years.
- Four of your last six plans were cancelled; two after you had already arrived.
- Their parent is seriously ill; they are balancing caregiving and work.
- They send late-night messages asking for support; you’ve lost sleep and rearranged your own plans.
- You said you couldn’t always be available; they replied, “I thought real friends showed up when things got hard.”
- You then sent, “You only contact me when you need something”; they haven’t replied in three days.
- They supported you through a difficult move last year.

**What we are assuming**
- That their silence is punitive or final (they may simply be overwhelmed or shutting down).
- That they only value you for support (last year’s help contradicts this).
- That your needing limits means you’re making their crisis about yourself (self-care isn’t selfishness).
- That the mutual friend’s view is the whole truth (it highlights your harsh line, but not your exhaustion).

**Your contribution, fairly**
You are not wrong to need rest. The mutual friend is partly right: your “only contact me” message was an overstatement. It erased their past care and landed as an accusation during a crisis. That likely deepened the hurt more than your earlier, fair statement that you “can’t always be available.” Owning the unfair text does not mean apologizing for having limits.

**A realistic boundary with compassion**
Offer specific, limited support instead of open-ended availability. For example: no late-night replies; plans confirmed by a set time; if they cancel after you’ve left home, you turn back; you can do one weekly 20-minute call or occasional errand. This protects your sleep while leaving the door open.

**A short message you could send**
“I’m sorry I said you only reach out when you need something—that wasn’t fair, especially after you helped me move. I care about you and what you’re carrying. I’ve been stretched thin, so I need to adjust: I can’t do late-night texts or last-minute plans, but I’d like to keep a weekly check-in. Take your time replying.”

**If they respond defensively**
Acknowledge the sting without retracting the boundary: “I hear that I hurt you, and I’m not withdrawing—I’m just being realistic about my capacity.” Then step back. Don’t argue or over-explain.

**If they don’t respond**
Don’t chase. Hold your routine, protect your sleep, and let the silence be. After one or two weeks you might send one neutral note; if still nothing, you’ve done your part.

**Pattern over time that would justify changing the friendship**
Not this fight alone. Over the next few months, watch: do they acknowledge your limits, even minimally? After the acute crisis eases, does any reciprocity return? If cancellations and one-sided contact persist, if they repeatedly use guilt to override stated boundaries, or if your health keeps declining despite clear limits, then reducing contact or ending it is reasonable. If they later show up in smaller ways, this may just be a lopsided season.

You don’t have to decide this week. Send the note, rest, and observe.

Requested model: openai/gpt-6-sol · Output budget: 16384 tokens · Requested reasoning: provider default · Sep 28, 2026, 08:36 UTC

Reported answer cost: $0.0083940000 USD. Excludes retry and judging costs.

You do not have to decide this week whether to keep or end an eight-year friendship. A more manageable goal is to repair what you can, state a limit you can keep, and see whether there is room for both people’s needs.

**What you know:** Your friend is under serious strain; they have cancelled four of six plans, twice after you arrived; late-night support has cost you sleep; they supported you during your move. You sent a statement you now think was unfair, and they have not replied for three days.

**What you do not know:** Why they have not replied, whether they meant to pressure you with “real friends showed up,” or whether they can currently offer the kind of reliability you want. Your mutual friend may have a perspective worth hearing, but they do not get to decide what your limits should be.

Your contribution is worth owning without taking responsibility for the whole conflict. “You only contact me when you need something” erased real support they gave you. You can apologize for that. It does **not** follow that you must be available at night or keep travelling to plans that may fall through.

**For the next week:** Choose a boundary that fits your actual capacity before you write. For example: you will read and respond to non-urgent messages when you are awake and available, not overnight; for in-person plans, you will confirm before leaving, and if you cannot confirm, you will stay home. Then send one message, rather than trying to settle everything through repeated texts:

> I’m sorry I said you *only* contact me when you need something. That wasn’t fair, especially after how you supported me last year. I care about you and I know this year has been hard. I also need to protect my sleep and stop making trips for plans that fall through. I can’t reliably reply late at night, and I’d like us to confirm plans before I leave. If you want to talk this week, I’m available [specific time]. I’m willing to listen, and I’d like us both to be able to say what’s been difficult.

Use a time you can genuinely offer. After sending it, give them space.

If they **respond defensively**, try not to litigate every cancellation by text. You could say: “I hear that you’ve needed support, and I’m sorry for the unfair wording. My limits still need to hold. I’d like to talk when we can both hear each other.” If the exchange stays heated, pause it.

If they **do not respond**, do not treat one week of silence as a final answer. Keep your boundary, avoid sending a string of follow-ups, and make plans that do not depend on them. You can decide later whether one brief check-in feels right.

Over time, look for a **pattern**, not a perfect apology or perfect attendance. Is your friend able to acknowledge the impact of cancellations, give notice when possible, and accept your limits—even if their caregiving situation remains difficult? Are you able to speak honestly without making absolute accusations? If repeated last-minute cancellations, guilt about reasonable limits, or one-sided contact continue after a clear conversation, it would be reasonable to change the friendship’s shape: fewer time-sensitive plans, less on-call support, or more distance. Compassion can remain even if your availability changes.

Requested model: qwen/qwen3.8-max-prime · Output budget: 16384 tokens · Requested reasoning: provider default · Sep 28, 2026, 08:34 UTC

Reported answer cost: $0.0235640000 USD. Excludes retry and judging costs.

Here’s a way to hold both truths: your friend is under real strain, and your needs are still legitimate.

### What we know vs. what we’re assuming

**What we know:**
- Your friend has cancelled four of the last six plans, twice after you arrived.
- Their parent is seriously ill; they are balancing caregiving and work.
- They reach out late at night for support.
- You are losing sleep and rearranging your life.
- When you said you couldn’t always be available, they said, “I thought real friends showed up when things got hard.”
- You replied, “You only contact me when you need something.”
- They supported you through a difficult move last year.
- There has been no reply for three days.

**What we may be assuming:**
- That their cancellations mean they don’t value you.
- That their late-night messages mean they are using you intentionally.
- That their silence means anger or rejection.
- That your limits make you a bad friend.
- That this friendship must either be fully maintained as-is or cut off.

Those may be true, but they are not proven. Their behavior may reflect overwhelm, fear, guilt, or exhaustion. Your hurt may also be shaping how you interpret their actions.

### Your contribution, fairly examined

Your boundary was reasonable. You are allowed to protect your sleep and not be available at all hours.

Your delivery was not fair. Saying “You only contact me when you need something” was likely an overstatement and erased the times they have supported you. In a moment of hurt, you made a claim that probably made them feel ashamed or attacked rather than heard.

Their comment about “real friends” may have felt guilt-tripping, but it may also have come from fear that they were losing support. You are not wrong for needing limits, but you are responsible for the part that was accusatory.

### A realistic boundary with compassion

A good boundary is specific, kind, and sustainable. It does not require you to be endlessly available, but it also does not abandon them.

Possible boundary:
- You can be available for planned support, not repeated late-night crises.
- You can offer a regular check-in or specific help, not last-minute rearranging.
- You can distinguish urgent from non-urgent needs.

### A message you could send

> “I’m sorry for saying you only contact me when you need something. That wasn’t fair, especially because you showed up for me last year. I care about you and I know you’re carrying a lot right now. I also need to be honest: I can’t keep doing late-night calls or frequent last-minute plans because it’s affecting my sleep. I still want to be in your life. Could we find a way for me to support you that doesn’t leave me running on empty?”

This apologizes for the unfair statement without apologizing for your needs.

### If they respond defensively

Try not to counterattack. You can say:

> “I hear that you’re hurt and overwhelmed. I’m not trying to abandon you. I’m trying to find a way to stay connected without burning out.”

If they insist that a real friend must be available without limits, you can hold your ground:

> “I care about you, but I can’t show up in a way that harms my health. I hope we can find something that works for both of us.”

### If they do not respond

Wait a few more days. Their silence may mean pain, exhaustion, or uncertainty, not necessarily rejection.

You could send one brief follow-up:

> “I’m still open to talking when you’re ready.”

After that, leave the ball in their court. Don’t keep escalating or over-apologizing. Give the friendship room to breathe.

### What pattern over time would justify changing the friendship?

One crisis does not define a friendship. But over months, pay attention to whether there is:
- Repeated cancellation without acknowledgment or repair.
- Support flowing mostly one way.
- Guilt-tripping when you set limits.
- Little interest in your life unless they need something.
- Your sleep, peace, or self-respect steadily worsening.

If that pattern persists despite honest conversation, it may be appropriate to downgrade the friendship: less frequent contact, lower availability, or more distance. That does not mean you are cruel. It means you are responding to reality.

This does not have to be all-or-nothing. You can care about someone and still refuse to be their only source of support. You can repair your part without abandoning your needs.

Requested model: x-ai/grok-4.7 · Output budget: 16384 tokens · Requested reasoning: provider default · Sep 28, 2026, 09:59 UTC

Reported answer cost: $0.0060720000 USD. Excludes retry and judging costs.

What you know is narrower than what this feels like. Four of six plans were cancelled, twice after you arrived. Their parent is seriously ill, and they are caregiving while working. They ask for late-night support. You are losing sleep and rearranging your life. After you said you could not always be available, they equated real friendship with showing up, and you answered that they only contact you when they need something. They have been silent for three days. They did support you through last year’s move. There is no safety emergency.

You do not know that they are using you, punishing you, or done with the friendship. Silence can be hurt, exhaustion, or not knowing what to say. You also do not know that every cancellation was unavoidable, or that the mutual friend has the full picture. “Real friends show up” may be pain speaking; it may also be a demand that your limits do not count. Both can be true.

Your limit was reasonable. Losing sleep is a cost, not a character flaw. The sentence you sent was still unfair: it erased last year’s support and turned a hard season into a verdict. Wanting less contact is not the same as making their crisis about you. Apologizing for the unfair line does not require withdrawing the boundary.

A realistic boundary: you can care without being on call. Offer one planned check-in you can keep, decline unconfirmed meetups and late-night processing, and say so before resentment builds. Compassion here is specific and limited, not unlimited availability.

You could send: “I’m sorry I said you only contact me when you need something. That ignored how you supported me last year, and it wasn’t fair. I do care about you and your parent. I can’t be available late at night or keep rearranging plans, and being left after I’ve arrived really hurt. If you want, I can do a short call on [day/time]. If not, I’ll give you space.”

If they respond defensively, don’t debate what a real friend is. Restate once: you care, the apology stands, and the limit stands. Then stop. If they don’t respond, send nothing further this week. One unreplied message is enough. Chase neither repair nor a breakup.

No single decision is required now. Over the next few months, reconsider the friendship if cancellations continue after clear agreements, guilt replaces conversation whenever you name a limit, support stays one-way after the acute crisis eases, or your sleep and plans keep suffering. Repair, even imperfect repair, points the other way. Cutting contact is allowed if the pattern holds; it is not required because you needed a boundary.

Requested model: google/gemini-3.8-flash · Output budget: 16384 tokens · Requested reasoning: provider default · Sep 28, 2026, 08:42 UTC

Reported answer cost: $0.0073267500 USD. Excludes retry and judging costs.

### 1. Facts vs. Assumptions

**What we know:**
* Your friend is under acute stress (caregiving for a seriously ill parent while working).
* They have broken commitments repeatedly (cancelling 4 of 6 plans, twice after you arrived) and rely on you for late-night emotional processing.
* You reached your limit, and both of you used weaponized language: they guilt-tripped you (“real friends show up”), and you used an absolute, inaccurate accusation (“you only contact me when you need something”).
* They were a reliable friend to you during your move last year.
* There has been silence for three days.

**What you are assuming:**
* **About their silence:** You might assume they are intentionally punishing you or discarding the friendship. They may simply be emotionally drained, embarrassed, hurt, or dealing with an immediate caregiving crisis.
* **About their intent:** Their guilt-tripping statement reflects poor boundary respect, but assuming it means they don't value you—rather than showing they are desperate and drowning—is an assumption.
* **About the mutual friend’s perspective:** You may be assuming the mutual friend has an objective, complete view of the dynamic, rather than just reacting to the friend's distress.

---

### 2. Examining Your Contribution Without Dismissing Your Needs

Your needs are legitimate. A crisis does not obligate you to absorb poor treatment, sacrifice your sleep, or wait around at venues when someone fails to show up. Enduring that without speaking up naturally created resentment.

However, your contribution was letting that resentment build until it exploded into an unfair generalization. When your friend guilt-tripped you, you reacted defensively rather than holding the boundary firmly. Telling someone in a crisis that they "only care when they need something"—especially when past evidence contradicts it—shifts the conversation from "how we treat each other" to an attack on their character.

---

### 3. A Realistic Boundary with Room for Compassion

Compassion without boundaries leads to resentment; boundaries without compassion lead to rigid isolation. 

A realistic balance right now:
* **In-person plans:** Pause fixed, travel-heavy plans. Shift to low-stakes interactions (e.g., "I can drop off groceries" or "Let's do a phone call when you have a 15-minute break").
* **Availability:** Turn your phone on "Do Not Disturb" at night. You are not an on-call crisis line, but you can respond warmly the next morning.
* **Communication:** Refuse to accept guilt trips, but don't attack back.

---

### 4. A Short Message You Could Send

Own your reaction, clarify your care, and take the pressure off an immediate response:

> *"I’m sorry for saying you only reach out when you need something—that was unfair and untrue, especially knowing how you’ve shown up for me in the past. I spoke out of frustration because I felt hurt. I love you and know how heavy things are for you right now. When you’re ready, I’d like to find a way to support you that also respects what I can realistically give. No need to reply to this until you have the space."*

---

### 5. What to Do Next

* **If they remain silent:** Leave it alone. Do not double-text, chase, or demand an answer. Give them a week or two. Let the silence be neutral space rather than a punishment.
* **If they respond defensively (e.g., doubling down that you failed them):** Do not debate your track record. Respond briefly and hold your line: *"I hear that you're hurting, but I can't be available 24/7 or have plans cancelled once I've already arrived. I want to be in your corner, but we need expectations that work for both of us. Let's take a pause and talk when things feel less raw."* Then step back.

---

### 6. What Pattern Over Time Justifies Changing the Friendship?

Crises distort dynamics temporarily; you don't need to make an immediate, permanent decision to cut contact this week. However, stepping back or fundamentally downgrading the closeness of the friendship becomes justified if:

1. **They demand unconditional accommodation:** If they believe a crisis grants them permanent immunity from treating you with basic consideration (like timely communication if they can't make a meeting).
2. **Entitlement replaces accountability:** Even after the acute crisis stabilizes, they never acknowledge your apology or take responsibility for their own words.
3. **The dynamic never recalibrates:** If the one-way support continues indefinitely, and attempts to establish mutual care are consistently met with guilt, punishment, or withdrawal.

Requested model: qwen/qwen3.7-flash · Output budget: 16384 tokens · Requested reasoning: provider default · Sep 28, 2026, 08:45 UTC

Reported answer cost: $0.0003130900 USD. Excludes retry and judging costs.

**What We Know vs. What We Are Assuming**
*Knowns:* Eight-year friendship; four of six recent plans cancelled (two after you arrived); friend’s parent is seriously ill; friend balances work and caregiving; they send late-night messages seeking support; you’ve missed sleep and rearranged personal plans; you communicated an inability to be always available; their reply invoked “real friends showing up”; you replied that they only contact you when they need something; three days of silence; reciprocal support occurred previously (your move last year); external advice to apologize and center their crisis.
*Assumptions:* That the late-night texts are primarily demands rather than distress; that their “real friends” line was a personal attack rather than an expression of their own overwhelmed expectations; that cutting contact is currently warranted; that guilt indicates moral failure rather than empathy stretched thin; that the mutual friend has full context.

**Examining Your Contribution Without Dismissing Your Needs**
Your boundary (“I can’t always be available”) protects sustainable giving. It is reasonable and necessary. Your follow-up message, while emotionally honest, likely triggered defensiveness because it reduced a complex, stress-impaired dynamic to a single accusation. That doesn’t make your need for reliability invalid; it highlights how acute frustration can flatten nuance. The friend’s past support during your move proves reciprocity existed, even if current conditions distort the balance. Caregiving fatigue often narrows people’s capacity to read tone, and crisis management frequently triggers rigid language (“real friends show up”). Your responsibility isn’t to fix their situation, but to communicate your limits without framing theirs as selfishness.

**A Realistic Boundary With Room for Compassion**
Structure your availability so it doesn’t require constant negotiation. Offer predictable windows for connection, clarify emergency definitions, and remove open-ended obligation. This honors their need for consistency while preserving your capacity. Compassion here means acknowledging their strain without absorbing it as your default role.

**Short Message You Could Send**
“I’ve been reflecting on our recent conversations, and I want to acknowledge how heavy things have been for you. I also need to be honest about where I am: I’ve reached a point where I can’t take last-minute cancellations or late-night support requests without burning out. I value our long history and want to stay connected in a way that doesn’t leave either of us resentful. Going forward, I’ll be available for scheduled check-ins and genuine emergencies. I know this isn’t perfect, but it’s what I can sustain right now.”

**If They Respond Defensively or Don’t Respond**
*Defensive reply:* Do not debate intent. Acknowledge the feeling, restate the boundary calmly, and disengage from persuasion. Example: “I hear this feels like abandonment, and I’m sorry it landed that way. My limit isn’t about withdrawing care—it’s about staying present without breaking myself. I’m happy to talk when things settle.” Then return to your stated structure.
*No response:* Silence often signals overwhelm, processing, or avoidance. Wait five to seven days total from your message. If still silent, send one low-pressure note: “No need to reply. I’ll step back for now, but I’ll remain in touch occasionally. I’m here when you’re ready to reconnect at a sustainable pace.” Then honor your distance. You cannot engineer engagement.

**Patterns Over Time That Would Justify Shifting the Friendship**
Reassess if you observe: repeated disregard for your communicated limits despite calm, clear restatements; consistent one-sided emotional dumping with minimal acknowledgment of yours; prolonged ambiguity that drains you more than it sustains you; or your resentment consistently outweighing the historical care and goodwill. Friendships naturally phase; proximity without reciprocity isn’t loyalty, it’s erosion. You can honor the eight years while allowing the present dynamic to change shape or distance itself.

Requested model: google/gemini-3.1-pro-preview · Output budget: 16384 tokens · Requested reasoning: provider default · Sep 28, 2026, 08:34 UTC

Reported answer cost: $0.0280200000 USD. Excludes retry and judging costs.

Here is an objective look at your situation to help you navigate the next week.

**What We Know vs. What We Are Assuming**
*   **We know:** Your friend is in a severe, acute crisis (caregiving and working). You have an eight-year history that includes them supporting you. You are exhausted from disrupted sleep and rearranged plans. You both communicated poorly out of stress—they used a guilt-trip ("real friends show up"), and you used an unfair absolute ("you *only* contact me when...").
*   **We are assuming:** You might be assuming their cancellations are a lack of respect for your time, when they may actually be unpredictable caregiving emergencies. They are likely assuming your boundary means you are abandoning them. Your mutual friend is assuming this situation is black-and-white, without understanding the physical toll (lost sleep) it is taking on you.

**Your Contribution and Your Needs**
You contributed to the current standoff by letting resentment build until you lashed out with an exaggerated statement. Often, when we don't set boundaries early, we become exhausted and deliver those boundaries out of anger rather than care. 

However, your mutual friend is wrong to imply that acknowledging your own limits means "making it about yourself." You have a fundamental need for sleep, predictability, and emotional bandwidth. Caregiver fatigue extends to the friends of caregivers. You cannot be a steady source of support if you are running on empty. Having limits doesn't make you a bad friend; it makes you a human being with a finite amount of energy.

**A Realistic Boundary**
A compassionate boundary protects your well-being while accommodating their chaotic reality. 
1.  **For sleep:** Put your phone on "Do Not Disturb" during your sleeping hours. You are not an emergency responder. You can read and reply to their late-night messages with compassion the next morning.
2.  **For plans:** Stop making time-sensitive or location-dependent plans. If they cancel when you’ve already arrived, it breeds resentment. Instead, shift to low-stakes support: "I'm going to drop off dinner on your porch on Tuesday," or "Let's do a phone call during your commute." 

**What to Do in the Next Week**
Since you acknowledge your last message was unfair, you should clear the air regarding *how* you spoke, without apologizing for having limits. 

**A message you could send:**
*"Hey [Name], I want to apologize for my last message. Saying you only reach out when you need something was unfair, and I know how much you supported me last year. I’ve been feeling physically exhausted and overwhelmed, but I shouldn't have lashed out. I really care about you and want to support you through this incredibly hard time, but I also need to protect my sleep and schedule. I’m here whenever you have the bandwidth to talk."*

**How to Handle Their Response**
*   **If they respond defensively:** Do not argue or try to logically prove your exhaustion. Acknowledge their pain, but politely end the conversation. You can say: *"I hear that you are hurting and under immense pressure right now. I don't want to argue. Let's take some space and connect later."*
*   **If they do not respond:** Give them grace and space. They are juggling a dying/sick parent, work, and now a friendship conflict. They may simply lack the emotional capacity to reply. Do not double-text. Leave the door open for them to return when they are ready.

**When to Consider Changing the Friendship**
Friendships go through asymmetrical phases during crises. It is normal for a relationship to be largely about them while their parent is seriously ill. However, a pattern that would justify stepping back permanently includes:
*   **Chronic emotional manipulation:** If they continually try to punish or guilt-trip you for having basic boundaries (like sleeping), even after you have calmly explained them.
*   **Refusal to adapt:** If they reject your attempts to find low-pressure ways to connect and continue to demand you show up in ways that damage your daily life.
*   **Long-term lack of reciprocity:** Once the acute caregiving crisis is eventually over and a new normal is established, if the friendship remains entirely one-sided and your needs are consistently ignored, it may be time to reevaluate the relationship's future.

Requested model: openai/gpt-oss-20b:nitro · Output budget: 16384 tokens · Requested reasoning: provider default · Sep 28, 2026, 08:45 UTC

Reported answer cost: $0.0004087500 USD. Excludes retry and judging costs.

**What we know**

* Your friend has canceled four of the last six plans, including twice after you already arrived.  
* Their parent became seriously ill and they are juggling caregiving with work.  
* They send late‑night texts asking for support.  
* You have been rearranging your own schedule and losing sleep because of this.  
* You told them, “You only contact me when you need something.” and have not heard back for three days.  
* Earlier in the year you supported the friend through a difficult move.

**What we assume (but could be wrong)**

* The friend’s cancellations are mainly due to the parent’s illness and work, not because they value you less.  
* They may not realize the toll their requests take on you, or they might see your boundaries as a personal rejection.  
* Your statement “only contact me when you need something” may have been harsher than intended, but it did reflect your current exhaustion.  

**Examining your own contribution**

* **Positive** – You have been a source of help during their move and have tried to be supportive.  
* **Potentially harmful** – The blunt message may have shut them down; it also omitted a brief apology for the hurt it could cause.  
* **Self‑care** – You have been compromising your sleep and schedule, which is unsustainable.  
* **Boundaries** – You were unclear about *when* and *how* you can help. The friend’s expectation (“show up when things get hard”) conflicts with your capacity.

**A realistic, compassionate boundary**

1. **Availability window** – You can answer late‑night texts that are urgent (e.g., “My mom just fell.”) but you will not reply until morning unless the situation is truly emergent.  
2. **Plan confirmation** – If you agree to meet, ask for a 24‑hour notice before canceling. If they need to cancel, they should let you know as soon as possible.  
3. **Self‑time** – Reserve at least one evening per week where you do not check messages, to protect your sleep and sanity.  
4. **Help scope** – Offer to help with specific tasks (e.g., “I can run an errand for you tomorrow morning”) instead of being an open‑ended “I’m here for you.”

**Short message you could send**

> “Hey [Friend’s name], I’ve been thinking about what you said and how we’re both stretched right now. I really value our friendship and the support we’ve given each other. I’m still here if you need help, but I need to keep my sleep and work on track, so I’ll only be able to respond to urgent messages in the late‑night. For normal chats I’ll get back to you first thing in the morning. Let’s try to give each other at least a 24‑hour heads‑up if plans change. Thanks for understanding.”

**What to do if they respond defensively or don’t respond**

* **Defensive reply** – Acknowledge their hurt: “I’m sorry you feel that way; that wasn’t my intention.” Re‑state the boundary calmly. Offer a specific example of how you can help within the new limits.  
* **No reply** – Give them a few days. If after that you still hear nothing, send a brief note saying you’re giving them space and that you’ll reach out again later. If silence continues, it signals they may not respect the boundary.

**What pattern would justify re‑evaluating the friendship**

| Pattern | When it becomes concerning |
|---------|----------------------------|
| Repeated cancellations without 24‑hour notice or no effort to reschedule | Over 2–3 instances |
| Consistently ignoring your boundary about response time or availability | After the boundary is clearly communicated |
| Frequent late‑night messages that you must ignore for self‑care | Once you’re forced to sacrifice sleep repeatedly |
| Mutual support is one‑way and you feel drained or resentful | After several months of imbalance |
| They react with hostility or guilt when you assert limits | If this becomes a recurring conflict |

If these patterns persist despite clear communication, it may be time to consider stepping back or redefining the friendship’s role in your life.

---

**Bottom line**  
You have legitimate limits. Set a clear, compassionate boundary, communicate it gently, and observe whether the friend respects it. If they consistently disregard your needs, the friendship may no longer serve either of you. If they respond positively and adjust, you can maintain a supportive relationship that preserves both of your well‑being.

Requested model: mistralai/mistral-medium-3-5 · Output budget: 16384 tokens · Requested reasoning: provider default · Sep 28, 2026, 08:34 UTC

Reported answer cost: $0.0059835000 USD. Excludes retry and judging costs.

Here’s a structured way to approach this, balancing fairness, self-respect, and compassion:

### **What We Know vs. What We’re Assuming**
- **Known**: Your friend is under extreme stress (caregiving + work), has canceled plans repeatedly (including last-minute), and has leaned on you for support. You’ve felt stretched thin, set a limit, and their response implied your boundary was a failure of friendship. You’ve also contributed to the friendship meaningfully (e.g., their support during your move).
- **Assumed**: That their behavior is *only* about their crisis (it might also reflect their coping style or communication habits). That your frustration means you don’t care (it means you’re human). That their silence is punishment (it might be overwhelm or avoidance).

### **Your Contribution**
Your statement *"You only contact me when you need something"* was a reaction to feeling unappreciated, but it oversimplified a history where they *have* shown up for you. That’s worth acknowledging. However, your need for reliability and reciprocity is valid—friendship isn’t sustainable if it’s one-sided in *either* direction.

### **A Realistic Boundary**
A compassionate but firm boundary could be:
- **Time**: "I can’t always drop everything, but I’ll check in on [specific day/time] if that helps."
- **Plans**: "I need at least 24 hours’ notice for plans so I can adjust my schedule."
- **Emotional labor**: "I care about you, but I can’t be your primary support right now. Can we talk about other resources (e.g., a support group, therapy)?"

This leaves room for their hardship while protecting your well-being.

---

### **A Message You Could Send**
*"I’ve been thinking about our conversation and realize my last message didn’t acknowledge how much you’ve been there for me too. I do want to support you, but I’ve been struggling with the unpredictability and the weight of being your go-to person. I’m not saying I won’t be here at all—I’m saying I need to set some limits so I can show up in a way that’s sustainable for both of us. Can we talk about how to make this work?"*

---

### **If They Respond Defensively or Don’t Reply**
- **Defensive**: Stay calm. Repeat your boundary: *"I hear this is hard for you. My need for consistency isn’t about not caring—it’s about what I can realistically offer."*
- **No reply**: Give them space (a week?), then follow up once: *"I’d still like to talk when you’re ready."* If they remain silent, assume they need time or are unable to engage. Your boundary stands regardless.

---

### **Pattern That Would Justify Changing the Friendship**
Watch for:
1. **Repeated disregard for your limits** (e.g., late-night messages after you’ve asked for advance notice).
2. **No effort to reciprocate** (e.g., never initiating plans or asking about your life).
3. **Guilt-tripping or punishment** (e.g., silence, passive-aggressive comments when you enforce boundaries).

If these persist *after* you’ve communicated clearly, it’s reasonable to step back. But one conflict doesn’t define eight years. Give it time to see if they can adjust.

---
**Key**: You’re not responsible for fixing their crisis, but you *are* responsible for honoring your own capacity. Compassion doesn’t require self-sacrifice.

Requested model: inception/mercury-2.5 · Output budget: 16384 tokens · Requested reasoning: provider default · Sep 28, 2026, 08:44 UTC

Reported answer cost: $0.0004007800 USD. Excludes retry and judging costs.

It is understandable to feel torn. Here is a framework to navigate the next week.

**Facts vs. Assumptions**
*Facts:* Your friend canceled four of six plans (twice after you arrived). Their parent is ill. They message late at night. You lost sleep and rearranged plans. You set a limit; they guilt-tripped you. You replied defensively. They are silent for three days. They supported you last year.
*Assumptions:* Their silence means the friendship is over. They are intentionally neglectful. Your needs are secondary to their crisis. The mutual friend’s advice covers the full context.

**Your Contribution**
Your frustration is valid. Losing sleep and constant rescheduling erode any relationship. However, the message “You only contact me when you need something” generalizes their behavior. It dismisses the support they gave you last year and the genuine stress they face. This reaction likely escalated the tension. Acknowledging this doesn’t mean you were wrong to set limits; it means the delivery could be refined.

**A Realistic Boundary**
You can care for them without sacrificing your health. A boundary might look like: “I am available to talk on weekday evenings between 7 and 9 PM, but I cannot respond to late-night messages unless there is an emergency.” This preserves your rest while offering predictable support. It shifts the dynamic from on-demand to structured.

**Draft Message**
“I’ve been reflecting on our conversation. I care about you deeply and want to support you through your parent’s illness. However, I’m struggling to keep up with late-night messages when I need rest to function at work. I still want to be there for you—could we agree on specific times to connect? I know this is a lot for both of us right now.”

**Handling Responses**
*If they respond defensively:* Reiterate your care but hold the limit. “I understand this feels rejecting. I’m trying to be a better friend by protecting my energy. I don’t want to ignore you.”
*If they do not respond:* Wait one more week. Silence can be a coping mechanism during crisis. If no contact by then, send a low-pressure check-in. If still nothing, step back further.

**Patterns to Watch**
One hard moment doesn’t define a bond. Look for trends over the next three months. Does reciprocity return when their stress stabilizes? Do they respect your stated limits? Do they make consistent efforts to meet up beyond crisis mode? If the pattern remains one-sided for six months, reconsidering the investment is reasonable.

**Next Steps**
For the next week, focus on your own rest. Do not rearrange plans for them. Send the message above if you feel ready, or wait a day to cool off. Trust that setting boundaries is an act of care for both of you, not a rejection. You deserve relationships that sustain you, not just deplete you.

Requested model: inclusionai/ling-3.0-flash · Output budget: 16384 tokens · Requested reasoning: provider default · Sep 28, 2026, 08:44 UTC

Reported answer cost: $0.0001567860 USD. Excludes retry and judging costs.

**Facts vs. Assumptions**
*Facts:* Your friend cancelled four of your last six plans, twice after you arrived. Their parent is seriously ill, and they are balancing caregiving with work. They send late-night messages. You lost sleep and rearranged your plans. You set a boundary; they guilt-tripped you. You sent a sweeping statement. They haven't replied in three days. You supported them during a move last year. 
*Assumptions:* They are intentionally using you. Your limits make you a bad friend. The friendship is irreparably broken.

**Your Contribution**
Your text ("you only contact me...") was a reaction to feeling depleted, but it was a global claim that erased the support you gave them last year. This likely triggered their guilt, causing them to shut down. You are allowed to have limits, but the delivery can be refined to separate the behavior from the person.

**A Realistic Boundary**
A boundary isn't a wall; it's a fence with a gate. You can acknowledge their crisis while refusing to be the sole emergency responder. State what you *can* do, not just what you can't. 

**The Message**
"I know your parent’s illness is incredibly hard, and I care about you. I also need to protect my sleep and work commitments, so I can’t be available for late-night texts or last-minute cancellations anymore. I’m here for you during regular hours."

**If They Respond Defensively or Not At All**
If they respond defensively, don't debate. Just hold the boundary: "I understand you're frustrated, but I need this to be sustainable for both of us." If they don't respond in a week, don't chase. Their silence is data. Focus on your own rest.

**What Pattern Justifies Changing the Friendship**
A single crisis doesn't end a friendship, but a chronic pattern does. If, after this boundary, they continue to only reach out when they need something, consistently cancel, dismiss your needs, or refuse to respect your availability, the friendship has shifted from mutual to transactional. You are not obligated to sustain a relationship that consistently depletes you while offering nothing in return. You can step back without an apology, simply by slowly withdrawing your availability.

Answer A

GPT-6 Astra

Answer B

GLM 5.3 Prime

Probabilities

A: 0.400 · B: 0.600

Confidence

0.200

Judge version

jev-1.13.0

Judged at

Sep 28, 2026, 08:46 UTC

Answer A

GPT-6 Astra

Answer B

Claude Fable 5.1

Probabilities

A: 0.580 · B: 0.420

Confidence

0.150

Judge version

jev-1.13.0

Judged at

Sep 28, 2026, 08:46 UTC

Answer A

Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview

Answer B

GPT-6 Astra

Probabilities

A: 0.060 · B: 0.940

Confidence

0.890

Judge version

jev-1.13.0

Judged at

Sep 28, 2026, 08:46 UTC

Answer A

DeepSeek V4 Pro

Answer B

GPT-6 Astra

Probabilities

A: 0.190 · B: 0.810

Confidence

0.620

Judge version

jev-1.13.0

Judged at

Sep 28, 2026, 08:46 UTC

Answer A

GPT-6 Astra

Answer B

MiMo V2.6 Pro

Probabilities

A: 0.590 · B: 0.410

Confidence

0.180

Judge version

jev-1.13.0

Judged at

Sep 28, 2026, 08:46 UTC

Answer A

GPT-6 Astra

Answer B

Qwen3.8 Max Prime

Probabilities

A: 0.930 · B: 0.070

Confidence

0.860

Judge version

jev-1.13.0

Judged at

Sep 28, 2026, 08:46 UTC

Answer A

GPT-6 Astra

Answer B

Kimi K3

Probabilities

A: 0.630 · B: 0.370

Confidence

0.260

Judge version

jev-1.13.0

Judged at

Sep 28, 2026, 08:46 UTC

Answer A

GPT-6 Astra

Answer B

GLM 5.3 Flash

Probabilities

A: 0.770 · B: 0.230

Confidence

0.530

Judge version

jev-1.13.0

Judged at

Sep 28, 2026, 08:46 UTC

Answer A

Space Bunny Alpha

Answer B

GPT-6 Astra

Probabilities

A: 0.480 · B: 0.520

Confidence

0.030

Judge version

jev-1.13.0

Judged at

Sep 28, 2026, 08:46 UTC

Answer A

GPT-6 Astra

Answer B

Claude Opus 5.5

Probabilities

A: 0.500 · B: 0.500

Confidence

0.010

Judge version

jev-1.13.0

Judged at

Sep 28, 2026, 08:46 UTC

Answer A

Mistral Medium 3.5

Answer B

GPT-6 Astra

Probabilities

A: 0.020 · B: 0.980

Confidence

0.970

Judge version

jev-1.13.0

Judged at

Sep 28, 2026, 08:46 UTC

Answer A

GPT-6 Astra

Answer B

Hy4 preview

Probabilities

A: 0.540 · B: 0.460

Confidence

0.090

Judge version

jev-1.13.0

Judged at

Sep 28, 2026, 08:46 UTC

Answer A

GPT-6 Astra

Answer B

Nemotron 3 Ultra (free)

Probabilities

A: 0.880 · B: 0.120

Confidence

0.760

Judge version

jev-1.13.0

Judged at

Sep 28, 2026, 08:46 UTC

Answer A

GPT-6 Astra

Answer B

MiMo-V2.6-Flash

Probabilities

A: 0.880 · B: 0.120

Confidence

0.750

Judge version

jev-1.13.0

Judged at

Sep 28, 2026, 08:46 UTC

Answer A

MiniMax M2.7 (Nitro)

Answer B

GPT-6 Astra

Probabilities

A: 0.370 · B: 0.630

Confidence

0.250

Judge version

jev-1.13.0

Judged at

Sep 28, 2026, 08:46 UTC

Answer A

GPT-6 Astra

Answer B

GPT-6 Luna

Probabilities

A: 0.880 · B: 0.120

Confidence

0.760

Judge version

jev-1.13.0

Judged at

Sep 28, 2026, 08:46 UTC

Answer A

DeepSeek V4.1 Flash

Answer B

GPT-6 Astra

Probabilities

A: 0.610 · B: 0.390

Confidence

0.210

Judge version

jev-1.13.0

Judged at

Sep 28, 2026, 08:46 UTC

Answer A

GPT-6 Astra

Answer B

GPT-6 Sol

Probabilities

A: 0.850 · B: 0.150

Confidence

0.690

Judge version

jev-1.13.0

Judged at

Sep 28, 2026, 08:46 UTC

Answer A

Hy3

Answer B

GPT-6 Astra

Probabilities

A: 0.160 · B: 0.840

Confidence

0.670

Judge version

jev-1.13.0

Judged at

Sep 28, 2026, 08:46 UTC

Answer A

Gemini 3.8 Flash

Answer B

GPT-6 Astra

Probabilities

A: 0.170 · B: 0.830

Confidence

0.660

Judge version

jev-1.13.0

Judged at

Sep 28, 2026, 08:46 UTC

Answer A

GPT-6 Astra

Answer B

gpt-oss-120b

Probabilities

A: 0.850 · B: 0.150

Confidence

0.700

Judge version

jev-1.13.0

Judged at

Sep 28, 2026, 08:46 UTC

Answer A

GPT-6 Astra

Answer B

Mercury 2.5

Probabilities

A: 1.000 · B: 0.000

Confidence

0.990

Judge version

jev-1.13.0

Judged at

Sep 28, 2026, 08:46 UTC

Answer A

Solar Pro 4

Answer B

GPT-6 Astra

Probabilities

A: 0.530 · B: 0.470

Confidence

0.060

Judge version

jev-1.13.0

Judged at

Sep 28, 2026, 08:46 UTC

Answer A

Ling 3.0 Flash

Answer B

GPT-6 Astra

Probabilities

A: 0.000 · B: 1.000

Confidence

1.000

Judge version

jev-1.13.0

Judged at

Sep 28, 2026, 08:46 UTC

Answer A

DeepSeek V4 Pro

Answer B

Claude Fable 5.1

Probabilities

A: 0.210 · B: 0.790

Confidence

0.580

Judge version

jev-1.13.0

Judged at

Sep 28, 2026, 08:46 UTC

Answer A

Claude Fable 5.1

Answer B

MiMo V2.6 Pro

Probabilities

A: 0.540 · B: 0.460

Confidence

0.070

Judge version

jev-1.13.0

Judged at

Sep 28, 2026, 08:46 UTC

Answer A

Qwen3.8 Max Prime

Answer B

Claude Fable 5.1

Probabilities

A: 0.190 · B: 0.810

Confidence

0.620

Judge version

jev-1.13.0

Judged at

Sep 28, 2026, 08:46 UTC

Answer A

Claude Fable 5.1

Answer B

Kimi K3

Probabilities

A: 0.510 · B: 0.490

Confidence

0.020

Judge version

jev-1.13.0

Judged at

Sep 28, 2026, 08:46 UTC

Answer A

Claude Fable 5.1

Answer B

Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview

Probabilities

A: 0.980 · B: 0.020

Confidence

0.950

Judge version

jev-1.13.0

Judged at

Sep 28, 2026, 08:46 UTC

Answer A

GPT-6 Astra

Answer B

gpt-oss-20b (Nitro)

Probabilities

A: 0.980 · B: 0.020

Confidence

0.970

Judge version

jev-1.13.0

Judged at

Sep 28, 2026, 08:46 UTC

Answer A

Qwen3.7 Flash

Answer B

GPT-6 Astra

Probabilities

A: 0.090 · B: 0.910

Confidence

0.810

Judge version

jev-1.13.0

Judged at

Sep 28, 2026, 08:46 UTC

Answer A

GLM 5.3 Prime

Answer B

Claude Fable 5.1

Probabilities

A: 0.680 · B: 0.320

Confidence

0.360

Judge version

jev-1.13.0

Judged at

Sep 28, 2026, 08:46 UTC

Answer A

Claude Fable 5.1

Answer B

Mistral Medium 3.5

Probabilities

A: 0.990 · B: 0.010

Confidence

0.980

Judge version

jev-1.13.0

Judged at

Sep 28, 2026, 08:46 UTC

Answer A

Claude Fable 5.1

Answer B

Claude Opus 5.5

Probabilities

A: 0.560 · B: 0.440

Confidence

0.120

Judge version

jev-1.13.0

Judged at

Sep 28, 2026, 08:46 UTC

Answer A

Claude Fable 5.1

Answer B

GPT-6 Luna

Probabilities

A: 0.920 · B: 0.080

Confidence

0.830

Judge version

jev-1.13.0

Judged at

Sep 28, 2026, 08:46 UTC

Answer A

DeepSeek V4.1 Flash

Answer B

Claude Fable 5.1

Probabilities

A: 0.500 · B: 0.500

Confidence

0.010

Judge version

jev-1.13.0

Judged at

Sep 28, 2026, 08:46 UTC

Answer A

Claude Fable 5.1

Answer B

GLM 5.3 Flash

Probabilities

A: 0.640 · B: 0.360

Confidence

0.290

Judge version

jev-1.13.0

Judged at

Sep 28, 2026, 08:46 UTC

Answer A

Claude Fable 5.1

Answer B

Space Bunny Alpha

Probabilities

A: 0.770 · B: 0.230

Confidence

0.540

Judge version

jev-1.13.0

Judged at

Sep 28, 2026, 08:46 UTC

Answer A

MiMo-V2.6-Flash

Answer B

Claude Fable 5.1

Probabilities

A: 0.300 · B: 0.700

Confidence

0.400

Judge version

jev-1.13.0

Judged at

Sep 28, 2026, 08:46 UTC

Answer A

GPT-6 Sol

Answer B

Claude Fable 5.1

Probabilities

A: 0.150 · B: 0.850

Confidence

0.700

Judge version

jev-1.13.0

Judged at

Sep 28, 2026, 08:46 UTC

Answer A

Gemini 3.8 Flash

Answer B

Claude Fable 5.1

Probabilities

A: 0.160 · B: 0.840

Confidence

0.680

Judge version

jev-1.13.0

Judged at

Sep 28, 2026, 08:46 UTC

Answer A

Solar Pro 4

Answer B

Claude Fable 5.1

Probabilities

A: 0.450 · B: 0.550

Confidence

0.100

Judge version

jev-1.13.0

Judged at

Sep 28, 2026, 08:46 UTC

Answer A

Claude Fable 5.1

Answer B

Ling 3.0 Flash

Probabilities

A: 1.000 · B: 0.000

Confidence

1.000

Judge version

jev-1.13.0

Judged at

Sep 28, 2026, 08:46 UTC

Answer A

Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview

Answer B

Mistral Medium 3.5

Probabilities

A: 0.800 · B: 0.200

Confidence

0.600

Judge version

jev-1.13.0

Judged at

Sep 28, 2026, 08:46 UTC

Answer A

Claude Fable 5.1

Answer B

gpt-oss-120b

Probabilities

A: 0.870 · B: 0.130

Confidence

0.750

Judge version

jev-1.13.0

Judged at

Sep 28, 2026, 08:46 UTC

Answer A

Hy3

Answer B

Claude Fable 5.1

Probabilities

A: 0.180 · B: 0.820

Confidence

0.640

Judge version

jev-1.13.0

Judged at

Sep 28, 2026, 08:46 UTC

Answer A

Claude Fable 5.1

Answer B

Hy4 preview

Probabilities

A: 0.640 · B: 0.360

Confidence

0.270

Judge version

jev-1.13.0

Judged at

Sep 28, 2026, 08:46 UTC

Answer A

Claude Fable 5.1

Answer B

Nemotron 3 Ultra (free)

Probabilities

A: 0.890 · B: 0.110

Confidence

0.780

Judge version

jev-1.13.0

Judged at

Sep 28, 2026, 08:46 UTC

Answer A

Mercury 2.5

Answer B

Claude Fable 5.1

Probabilities

A: 0.010 · B: 0.990

Confidence

0.990

Judge version

jev-1.13.0

Judged at

Sep 28, 2026, 08:46 UTC

Answer A

Qwen3.7 Flash

Answer B

Claude Fable 5.1

Probabilities

A: 0.050 · B: 0.950

Confidence

0.900

Judge version

jev-1.13.0

Judged at

Sep 28, 2026, 08:46 UTC

Answer A

gpt-oss-20b (Nitro)

Answer B

Claude Fable 5.1

Probabilities

A: 0.030 · B: 0.970

Confidence

0.950

Judge version

jev-1.13.0

Judged at

Sep 28, 2026, 08:46 UTC

Answer A

Claude Fable 5.1

Answer B

MiniMax M2.7 (Nitro)

Probabilities

A: 0.880 · B: 0.120

Confidence

0.770

Judge version

jev-1.13.0

Judged at

Sep 28, 2026, 08:46 UTC

Answer A

Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview

Answer B

DeepSeek V4 Pro

Probabilities

A: 0.290 · B: 0.710

Confidence

0.430

Judge version

jev-1.13.0

Judged at

Sep 28, 2026, 08:46 UTC

Answer A

Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview

Answer B

MiMo V2.6 Pro

Probabilities

A: 0.060 · B: 0.940

Confidence

0.880

Judge version

jev-1.13.0

Judged at

Sep 28, 2026, 08:46 UTC

Answer A

Kimi K3

Answer B

Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview

Probabilities

A: 0.980 · B: 0.020

Confidence

0.970

Judge version

jev-1.13.0

Judged at

Sep 28, 2026, 08:46 UTC

Answer A

GLM 5.3 Prime

Answer B

Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview

Probabilities

A: 0.980 · B: 0.020

Confidence

0.970

Judge version

jev-1.13.0

Judged at

Sep 28, 2026, 08:46 UTC

Answer A

Qwen3.8 Max Prime

Answer B

Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview

Probabilities

A: 0.770 · B: 0.230

Confidence

0.540

Judge version

jev-1.13.0

Judged at

Sep 28, 2026, 08:46 UTC

Answer A

DeepSeek V4.1 Flash

Answer B

Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview

Probabilities

A: 0.980 · B: 0.020

Confidence

0.950

Judge version

jev-1.13.0

Judged at

Sep 28, 2026, 08:46 UTC

Answer A

Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview

Answer B

GLM 5.3 Flash

Probabilities

A: 0.060 · B: 0.940

Confidence

0.870

Judge version

jev-1.13.0

Judged at

Sep 28, 2026, 08:46 UTC

Answer A

Space Bunny Alpha

Answer B

Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview

Probabilities

A: 0.970 · B: 0.030

Confidence

0.950

Judge version

jev-1.13.0

Judged at

Sep 28, 2026, 08:46 UTC

Answer A

Hy4 preview

Answer B

Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview

Probabilities

A: 0.970 · B: 0.030

Confidence

0.950

Judge version

jev-1.13.0

Judged at

Sep 28, 2026, 08:46 UTC

Answer A

Claude Opus 5.5

Answer B

Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview

Probabilities

A: 0.980 · B: 0.020

Confidence

0.960

Judge version

jev-1.13.0

Judged at

Sep 28, 2026, 08:46 UTC

Answer A

Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview

Answer B

GPT-6 Luna

Probabilities

A: 0.280 · B: 0.720

Confidence

0.440

Judge version

jev-1.13.0

Judged at

Sep 28, 2026, 08:46 UTC

Answer A

Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview

Answer B

Nemotron 3 Ultra (free)

Probabilities

A: 0.190 · B: 0.810

Confidence

0.620

Judge version

jev-1.13.0

Judged at

Sep 28, 2026, 08:46 UTC

Answer A

MiMo-V2.6-Flash

Answer B

Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview

Probabilities

A: 0.950 · B: 0.050

Confidence

0.900

Judge version

jev-1.13.0

Judged at

Sep 28, 2026, 08:46 UTC

Answer A

Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview

Answer B

Hy3

Probabilities

A: 0.410 · B: 0.590

Confidence

0.180

Judge version

jev-1.13.0

Judged at

Sep 28, 2026, 08:46 UTC

Answer A

GPT-6 Sol

Answer B

Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview

Probabilities

A: 0.850 · B: 0.150

Confidence

0.700

Judge version

jev-1.13.0

Judged at

Sep 28, 2026, 08:46 UTC

Answer A

Gemini 3.8 Flash

Answer B

Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview

Probabilities

A: 0.760 · B: 0.240

Confidence

0.530

Judge version

jev-1.13.0

Judged at

Sep 28, 2026, 08:46 UTC

Answer A

Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview

Answer B

Solar Pro 4

Probabilities

A: 0.150 · B: 0.850

Confidence

0.700

Judge version

jev-1.13.0

Judged at

Sep 28, 2026, 08:46 UTC

Answer A

Ling 3.0 Flash

Answer B

Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview

Probabilities

A: 0.010 · B: 0.990

Confidence

0.980

Judge version

jev-1.13.0

Judged at

Sep 28, 2026, 08:46 UTC

Answer A

gpt-oss-120b

Answer B

Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview

Probabilities

A: 0.840 · B: 0.160

Confidence

0.690

Judge version

jev-1.13.0

Judged at

Sep 28, 2026, 08:46 UTC

Answer A

Mercury 2.5

Answer B

Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview

Probabilities

A: 0.080 · B: 0.920

Confidence

0.840

Judge version

jev-1.13.0

Judged at

Sep 28, 2026, 08:46 UTC

Answer A

DeepSeek V4 Pro

Answer B

Qwen3.8 Max Prime

Probabilities

A: 0.740 · B: 0.260

Confidence

0.480

Judge version

jev-1.13.0

Judged at

Sep 28, 2026, 08:46 UTC

Answer A

gpt-oss-20b (Nitro)

Answer B

Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview

Probabilities

A: 0.470 · B: 0.530

Confidence

0.060

Judge version

jev-1.13.0

Judged at

Sep 28, 2026, 08:46 UTC

Answer A

Qwen3.7 Flash

Answer B

Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview

Probabilities

A: 0.670 · B: 0.330

Confidence

0.340

Judge version

jev-1.13.0

Judged at

Sep 28, 2026, 08:46 UTC

Answer A

Claude Opus 5.5

Answer B

DeepSeek V4 Pro

Probabilities

A: 0.980 · B: 0.020

Confidence

0.960

Judge version

jev-1.13.0

Judged at

Sep 28, 2026, 08:46 UTC

Answer A

DeepSeek V4 Pro

Answer B

GPT-6 Luna

Probabilities

A: 0.600 · B: 0.400

Confidence

0.210

Judge version

jev-1.13.0

Judged at

Sep 28, 2026, 08:46 UTC

Answer A

MiniMax M2.7 (Nitro)

Answer B

Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview

Probabilities

A: 0.910 · B: 0.090

Confidence

0.820

Judge version

jev-1.13.0

Judged at

Sep 28, 2026, 08:46 UTC

Answer A

DeepSeek V4 Pro

Answer B

MiMo V2.6 Pro

Probabilities

A: 0.230 · B: 0.770

Confidence

0.540

Judge version

jev-1.13.0

Judged at

Sep 28, 2026, 08:46 UTC

Answer A

DeepSeek V4 Pro

Answer B

GPT-6 Sol

Probabilities

A: 0.530 · B: 0.470

Confidence

0.060

Judge version

jev-1.13.0

Judged at

Sep 28, 2026, 08:46 UTC

Answer A

DeepSeek V4.1 Flash

Answer B

DeepSeek V4 Pro

Probabilities

A: 0.950 · B: 0.050

Confidence

0.900

Judge version

jev-1.13.0

Judged at

Sep 28, 2026, 08:46 UTC

Answer A

DeepSeek V4 Pro

Answer B

GLM 5.3 Flash

Probabilities

A: 0.300 · B: 0.700

Confidence

0.400

Judge version

jev-1.13.0

Judged at

Sep 28, 2026, 08:46 UTC

Answer A

Kimi K3

Answer B

DeepSeek V4 Pro

Probabilities

A: 0.950 · B: 0.050

Confidence

0.910

Judge version

jev-1.13.0

Judged at

Sep 28, 2026, 08:46 UTC

Answer A

Space Bunny Alpha

Answer B

DeepSeek V4 Pro

Probabilities

A: 0.880 · B: 0.120

Confidence

0.760

Judge version

jev-1.13.0

Judged at

Sep 28, 2026, 08:46 UTC

Answer A

GLM 5.3 Prime

Answer B

DeepSeek V4 Pro

Probabilities

A: 0.970 · B: 0.030

Confidence

0.930

Judge version

jev-1.13.0

Judged at

Sep 28, 2026, 08:46 UTC

Answer A

Mistral Medium 3.5

Answer B

DeepSeek V4 Pro

Probabilities

A: 0.130 · B: 0.870

Confidence

0.740

Judge version

jev-1.13.0

Judged at

Sep 28, 2026, 08:46 UTC

Answer A

Hy4 preview

Answer B

DeepSeek V4 Pro

Probabilities

A: 0.950 · B: 0.050

Confidence

0.900

Judge version

jev-1.13.0

Judged at

Sep 28, 2026, 08:46 UTC

Answer A

DeepSeek V4 Pro

Answer B

Nemotron 3 Ultra (free)

Probabilities

A: 0.410 · B: 0.590

Confidence

0.190

Judge version

jev-1.13.0

Judged at

Sep 28, 2026, 08:46 UTC

Answer A

Mercury 2.5

Answer B

DeepSeek V4 Pro

Probabilities

A: 0.040 · B: 0.960

Confidence

0.930

Judge version

jev-1.13.0

Judged at

Sep 28, 2026, 08:46 UTC

Answer A

DeepSeek V4 Pro

Answer B

MiMo-V2.6-Flash

Probabilities

A: 0.490 · B: 0.510

Confidence

0.020

Judge version

jev-1.13.0

Judged at

Sep 28, 2026, 08:46 UTC

Answer A

Hy3

Answer B

DeepSeek V4 Pro

Probabilities

A: 0.700 · B: 0.300

Confidence

0.400

Judge version

jev-1.13.0

Judged at

Sep 28, 2026, 08:46 UTC

Answer A

DeepSeek V4 Pro

Answer B

gpt-oss-20b (Nitro)

Probabilities

A: 0.870 · B: 0.130

Confidence

0.740

Judge version

jev-1.13.0

Judged at

Sep 28, 2026, 08:46 UTC

Answer A

MiniMax M2.7 (Nitro)

Answer B

DeepSeek V4 Pro

Probabilities

A: 0.730 · B: 0.270

Confidence

0.460

Judge version

jev-1.13.0

Judged at

Sep 28, 2026, 08:46 UTC

Answer A

Gemini 3.8 Flash

Answer B

DeepSeek V4 Pro

Probabilities

A: 0.650 · B: 0.350

Confidence

0.290

Judge version

jev-1.13.0

Judged at

Sep 28, 2026, 08:46 UTC

Answer A

MiMo V2.6 Pro

Answer B

Qwen3.8 Max Prime

Probabilities

A: 0.950 · B: 0.050

Confidence

0.900

Judge version

jev-1.13.0

Judged at

Sep 28, 2026, 08:46 UTC

Answer A

Ling 3.0 Flash

Answer B

DeepSeek V4 Pro

Probabilities

A: 0.010 · B: 0.990

Confidence

0.990

Judge version

jev-1.13.0

Judged at

Sep 28, 2026, 08:46 UTC

Answer A

Solar Pro 4

Answer B

DeepSeek V4 Pro

Probabilities

A: 0.920 · B: 0.080

Confidence

0.830

Judge version

jev-1.13.0

Judged at

Sep 28, 2026, 08:46 UTC

Answer A

Kimi K3

Answer B

MiMo V2.6 Pro

Probabilities

A: 0.690 · B: 0.310

Confidence

0.380

Judge version

jev-1.13.0

Judged at

Sep 28, 2026, 08:46 UTC

Answer A

MiMo V2.6 Pro

Answer B

GLM 5.3 Prime

Probabilities

A: 0.450 · B: 0.550

Confidence

0.100

Judge version

jev-1.13.0

Judged at

Sep 28, 2026, 08:46 UTC

Answer A

Qwen3.7 Flash

Answer B

DeepSeek V4 Pro

Probabilities

A: 0.470 · B: 0.530

Confidence

0.050

Judge version

jev-1.13.0

Judged at

Sep 28, 2026, 08:46 UTC

Answer A

gpt-oss-120b

Answer B

DeepSeek V4 Pro

Probabilities

A: 0.790 · B: 0.210

Confidence

0.580

Judge version

jev-1.13.0

Judged at

Sep 28, 2026, 08:46 UTC

Answer A

MiMo V2.6 Pro

Answer B

Mistral Medium 3.5

Probabilities

A: 0.990 · B: 0.010

Confidence

0.980

Judge version

jev-1.13.0

Judged at

Sep 28, 2026, 08:46 UTC

Answer A

MiMo V2.6 Pro

Answer B

Claude Opus 5.5

Probabilities

A: 0.600 · B: 0.400

Confidence

0.210

Judge version

jev-1.13.0

Judged at

Sep 28, 2026, 08:46 UTC

Answer A

MiMo V2.6 Pro

Answer B

GPT-6 Luna

Probabilities

A: 0.930 · B: 0.070

Confidence

0.860

Judge version

jev-1.13.0

Judged at

Sep 28, 2026, 08:46 UTC

Answer A

MiMo V2.6 Pro

Answer B

GPT-6 Sol

Probabilities

A: 0.900 · B: 0.100

Confidence

0.790

Judge version

jev-1.13.0

Judged at

Sep 28, 2026, 08:46 UTC

Answer A

DeepSeek V4.1 Flash

Answer B

MiMo V2.6 Pro

Probabilities

A: 0.550 · B: 0.450

Confidence

0.100

Judge version

jev-1.13.0

Judged at

Sep 28, 2026, 08:46 UTC

Answer A

GLM 5.3 Flash

Answer B

MiMo V2.6 Pro

Probabilities

A: 0.550 · B: 0.450

Confidence

0.100

Judge version

jev-1.13.0

Judged at

Sep 28, 2026, 08:46 UTC

Answer A

MiMo V2.6 Pro

Answer B

Hy4 preview

Probabilities

A: 0.710 · B: 0.290

Confidence

0.430

Judge version

jev-1.13.0

Judged at

Sep 28, 2026, 08:46 UTC

Answer A

MiMo V2.6 Pro

Answer B

Space Bunny Alpha

Probabilities

A: 0.790 · B: 0.210

Confidence

0.580

Judge version

jev-1.13.0

Judged at

Sep 28, 2026, 08:46 UTC

Answer A

MiMo V2.6 Pro

Answer B

gpt-oss-120b

Probabilities

A: 0.870 · B: 0.130

Confidence

0.730

Judge version

jev-1.13.0

Judged at

Sep 28, 2026, 08:46 UTC

Answer A

MiMo V2.6 Pro

Answer B

Mercury 2.5

Probabilities

A: 1.000 · B: 0.000

Confidence

1.000

Judge version

jev-1.13.0

Judged at

Sep 28, 2026, 08:46 UTC

Answer A

Hy3

Answer B

MiMo V2.6 Pro

Probabilities

A: 0.160 · B: 0.840

Confidence

0.680

Judge version

jev-1.13.0

Judged at

Sep 28, 2026, 08:46 UTC

Answer A

Qwen3.7 Flash

Answer B

MiMo V2.6 Pro

Probabilities

A: 0.080 · B: 0.920

Confidence

0.840

Judge version

jev-1.13.0

Judged at

Sep 28, 2026, 08:46 UTC

Answer A

Nemotron 3 Ultra (free)

Answer B

MiMo V2.6 Pro

Probabilities

A: 0.380 · B: 0.620

Confidence

0.240

Judge version

jev-1.13.0

Judged at

Sep 28, 2026, 08:46 UTC

Answer A

MiMo V2.6 Pro

Answer B

MiMo-V2.6-Flash

Probabilities

A: 0.860 · B: 0.140

Confidence

0.720

Judge version

jev-1.13.0

Judged at

Sep 28, 2026, 08:46 UTC

Answer A

MiMo V2.6 Pro

Answer B

gpt-oss-20b (Nitro)

Probabilities

A: 0.990 · B: 0.010

Confidence

0.970

Judge version

jev-1.13.0

Judged at

Sep 28, 2026, 08:46 UTC

Answer A

MiniMax M2.7 (Nitro)

Answer B

MiMo V2.6 Pro

Probabilities

A: 0.310 · B: 0.690

Confidence

0.380

Judge version

jev-1.13.0

Judged at

Sep 28, 2026, 08:46 UTC

Answer A

Qwen3.8 Max Prime

Answer B

GLM 5.3 Flash

Probabilities

A: 0.240 · B: 0.760

Confidence

0.520

Judge version

jev-1.13.0

Judged at

Sep 28, 2026, 08:46 UTC

Answer A

Solar Pro 4

Answer B

MiMo V2.6 Pro

Probabilities

A: 0.530 · B: 0.470

Confidence

0.050

Judge version

jev-1.13.0

Judged at

Sep 28, 2026, 08:46 UTC

Answer A

Gemini 3.8 Flash

Answer B

MiMo V2.6 Pro

Probabilities

A: 0.170 · B: 0.830

Confidence

0.660

Judge version

jev-1.13.0

Judged at

Sep 28, 2026, 08:46 UTC

Answer A

Qwen3.8 Max Prime

Answer B

Kimi K3

Probabilities

A: 0.130 · B: 0.870

Confidence

0.730

Judge version

jev-1.13.0

Judged at

Sep 28, 2026, 08:46 UTC

Answer A

Qwen3.8 Max Prime

Answer B

GLM 5.3 Prime

Probabilities

A: 0.100 · B: 0.900

Confidence

0.790

Judge version

jev-1.13.0

Judged at

Sep 28, 2026, 08:46 UTC

Answer A

MiMo V2.6 Pro

Answer B

Ling 3.0 Flash

Probabilities

A: 1.000 · B: 0.000

Confidence

1.000

Judge version

jev-1.13.0

Judged at

Sep 28, 2026, 08:46 UTC

Answer A

Mistral Medium 3.5

Answer B

Qwen3.8 Max Prime

Probabilities

A: 0.100 · B: 0.900

Confidence

0.800

Judge version

jev-1.13.0

Judged at

Sep 28, 2026, 08:46 UTC

Answer A

Qwen3.8 Max Prime

Answer B

Claude Opus 5.5

Probabilities

A: 0.140 · B: 0.860

Confidence

0.730

Judge version

jev-1.13.0

Judged at

Sep 28, 2026, 08:46 UTC

Answer A

Qwen3.8 Max Prime

Answer B

Nemotron 3 Ultra (free)

Probabilities

A: 0.440 · B: 0.560

Confidence

0.120

Judge version

jev-1.13.0

Judged at

Sep 28, 2026, 08:46 UTC

Answer A

MiMo-V2.6-Flash

Answer B

Qwen3.8 Max Prime

Probabilities

A: 0.840 · B: 0.160

Confidence

0.680

Judge version

jev-1.13.0

Judged at

Sep 28, 2026, 08:46 UTC

Answer A

Qwen3.8 Max Prime

Answer B

GPT-6 Luna

Probabilities

A: 0.510 · B: 0.490

Confidence

0.020

Judge version

jev-1.13.0

Judged at

Sep 28, 2026, 08:46 UTC

Answer A

Qwen3.8 Max Prime

Answer B

Hy3

Probabilities

A: 0.590 · B: 0.410

Confidence

0.180

Judge version

jev-1.13.0

Judged at

Sep 28, 2026, 08:46 UTC

Answer A

Qwen3.8 Max Prime

Answer B

DeepSeek V4.1 Flash

Probabilities

A: 0.290 · B: 0.710

Confidence

0.420

Judge version

jev-1.13.0

Judged at

Sep 28, 2026, 08:46 UTC

Answer A

GPT-6 Sol

Answer B

Qwen3.8 Max Prime

Probabilities

A: 0.540 · B: 0.460

Confidence

0.090

Judge version

jev-1.13.0

Judged at

Sep 28, 2026, 08:46 UTC

Answer A

Gemini 3.8 Flash

Answer B

Qwen3.8 Max Prime

Probabilities

A: 0.610 · B: 0.390

Confidence

0.230

Judge version

jev-1.13.0

Judged at

Sep 28, 2026, 08:46 UTC

Answer A

Solar Pro 4

Answer B

Qwen3.8 Max Prime

Probabilities

A: 0.930 · B: 0.070

Confidence

0.850

Judge version

jev-1.13.0

Judged at

Sep 28, 2026, 08:46 UTC

Answer A

Space Bunny Alpha

Answer B

Qwen3.8 Max Prime

Probabilities

A: 0.920 · B: 0.080

Confidence

0.840

Judge version

jev-1.13.0

Judged at

Sep 28, 2026, 08:46 UTC

Answer A

Qwen3.8 Max Prime

Answer B

Ling 3.0 Flash

Probabilities

A: 1.000 · B: 0.000

Confidence

0.990

Judge version

jev-1.13.0

Judged at

Sep 28, 2026, 08:46 UTC

Answer A

gpt-oss-120b

Answer B

Qwen3.8 Max Prime

Probabilities

A: 0.690 · B: 0.310

Confidence

0.370

Judge version

jev-1.13.0

Judged at

Sep 28, 2026, 08:46 UTC

Answer A

Hy4 preview

Answer B

Qwen3.8 Max Prime

Probabilities

A: 0.940 · B: 0.060

Confidence

0.870

Judge version

jev-1.13.0

Judged at

Sep 28, 2026, 08:46 UTC

Answer A

Mercury 2.5

Answer B

Qwen3.8 Max Prime

Probabilities

A: 0.030 · B: 0.970

Confidence

0.940

Judge version

jev-1.13.0

Judged at

Sep 28, 2026, 08:47 UTC

Answer A

Qwen3.8 Max Prime

Answer B

Qwen3.7 Flash

Probabilities

A: 0.800 · B: 0.200

Confidence

0.610

Judge version

jev-1.13.0

Judged at

Sep 28, 2026, 08:47 UTC

Answer A

gpt-oss-20b (Nitro)

Answer B

Qwen3.8 Max Prime

Probabilities

A: 0.270 · B: 0.730

Confidence

0.470

Judge version

jev-1.13.0

Judged at

Sep 28, 2026, 08:47 UTC

Answer A

Kimi K3

Answer B

DeepSeek V4.1 Flash

Probabilities

A: 0.710 · B: 0.290

Confidence

0.430

Judge version

jev-1.13.0

Judged at

Sep 28, 2026, 08:47 UTC

Answer A

Mistral Medium 3.5

Answer B

Kimi K3

Probabilities

A: 0.010 · B: 0.990

Confidence

0.970

Judge version

jev-1.13.0

Judged at

Sep 28, 2026, 08:47 UTC

Answer A

Qwen3.8 Max Prime

Answer B

MiniMax M2.7 (Nitro)

Probabilities

A: 0.510 · B: 0.490

Confidence

0.010

Judge version

jev-1.13.0

Judged at

Sep 28, 2026, 08:47 UTC

Answer A

Kimi K3

Answer B

GLM 5.3 Prime

Probabilities

A: 0.460 · B: 0.540

Confidence

0.090

Judge version

jev-1.13.0

Judged at

Sep 28, 2026, 08:47 UTC

Answer A

Space Bunny Alpha

Answer B

Kimi K3

Probabilities

A: 0.480 · B: 0.520

Confidence

0.030

Judge version

jev-1.13.0

Judged at

Sep 28, 2026, 08:47 UTC

Answer A

Hy4 preview

Answer B

Kimi K3

Probabilities

A: 0.440 · B: 0.560

Confidence

0.120

Judge version

jev-1.13.0

Judged at

Sep 28, 2026, 08:47 UTC

Answer A

Nemotron 3 Ultra (free)

Answer B

Kimi K3

Probabilities

A: 0.230 · B: 0.770

Confidence

0.530

Judge version

jev-1.13.0

Judged at

Sep 28, 2026, 08:47 UTC

Answer A

Claude Opus 5.5

Answer B

Kimi K3

Probabilities

A: 0.650 · B: 0.350

Confidence

0.310

Judge version

jev-1.13.0

Judged at

Sep 28, 2026, 08:47 UTC

Answer A

GLM 5.3 Flash

Answer B

Kimi K3

Probabilities

A: 0.610 · B: 0.390

Confidence

0.210

Judge version

jev-1.13.0

Judged at

Sep 28, 2026, 08:47 UTC

Answer A

Kimi K3

Answer B

GPT-6 Sol

Probabilities

A: 0.910 · B: 0.090

Confidence

0.830

Judge version

jev-1.13.0

Judged at

Sep 28, 2026, 08:47 UTC

Answer A

GPT-6 Luna

Answer B

Kimi K3

Probabilities

A: 0.120 · B: 0.880

Confidence

0.760

Judge version

jev-1.13.0

Judged at

Sep 28, 2026, 08:47 UTC

Answer A

Kimi K3

Answer B

MiMo-V2.6-Flash

Probabilities

A: 0.840 · B: 0.160

Confidence

0.670

Judge version

jev-1.13.0

Judged at

Sep 28, 2026, 08:47 UTC

Answer A

Kimi K3

Answer B

Hy3

Probabilities

A: 0.940 · B: 0.060

Confidence

0.880

Judge version

jev-1.13.0

Judged at

Sep 28, 2026, 08:47 UTC

Answer A

Gemini 3.8 Flash

Answer B

Kimi K3

Probabilities

A: 0.120 · B: 0.880

Confidence

0.760

Judge version

jev-1.13.0

Judged at

Sep 28, 2026, 08:47 UTC

Answer A

GLM 5.3 Prime

Answer B

Mistral Medium 3.5

Probabilities

A: 0.990 · B: 0.010

Confidence

0.990

Judge version

jev-1.13.0

Judged at

Sep 28, 2026, 08:47 UTC

Answer A

Solar Pro 4

Answer B

Kimi K3

Probabilities

A: 0.450 · B: 0.550

Confidence

0.090

Judge version

jev-1.13.0

Judged at

Sep 28, 2026, 08:47 UTC

Answer A

Ling 3.0 Flash

Answer B

Kimi K3

Probabilities

A: 0.000 · B: 1.000

Confidence

1.000

Judge version

jev-1.13.0

Judged at

Sep 28, 2026, 08:47 UTC

Answer A

Qwen3.7 Flash

Answer B

Kimi K3

Probabilities

A: 0.040 · B: 0.960

Confidence

0.910

Judge version

jev-1.13.0

Judged at

Sep 28, 2026, 08:47 UTC

Answer A

gpt-oss-120b

Answer B

Kimi K3

Probabilities

A: 0.230 · B: 0.770

Confidence

0.550

Judge version

jev-1.13.0

Judged at

Sep 28, 2026, 08:47 UTC

Answer A

Kimi K3

Answer B

Mercury 2.5

Probabilities

A: 1.000 · B: 0.000

Confidence

1.000

Judge version

jev-1.13.0

Judged at

Sep 28, 2026, 08:47 UTC

Answer A

MiniMax M2.7 (Nitro)

Answer B

Kimi K3

Probabilities

A: 0.280 · B: 0.720

Confidence

0.450

Judge version

jev-1.13.0

Judged at

Sep 28, 2026, 08:47 UTC

Answer A

gpt-oss-20b (Nitro)

Answer B

Kimi K3

Probabilities

A: 0.020 · B: 0.980

Confidence

0.960

Judge version

jev-1.13.0

Judged at

Sep 28, 2026, 08:47 UTC

Answer A

GLM 5.3 Prime

Answer B

GPT-6 Sol

Probabilities

A: 0.920 · B: 0.080

Confidence

0.850

Judge version

jev-1.13.0

Judged at

Sep 28, 2026, 08:47 UTC

Answer A

GLM 5.3 Prime

Answer B

DeepSeek V4.1 Flash

Probabilities

A: 0.780 · B: 0.220

Confidence

0.560

Judge version

jev-1.13.0

Judged at

Sep 28, 2026, 08:47 UTC

Answer A

GLM 5.3 Flash

Answer B

GLM 5.3 Prime

Probabilities

A: 0.420 · B: 0.580

Confidence

0.170

Judge version

jev-1.13.0

Judged at

Sep 28, 2026, 08:47 UTC

Answer A

Space Bunny Alpha

Answer B

GLM 5.3 Prime

Probabilities

A: 0.280 · B: 0.720

Confidence

0.440

Judge version

jev-1.13.0

Judged at

Sep 28, 2026, 08:47 UTC

Answer A

Hy4 preview

Answer B

GLM 5.3 Prime

Probabilities

A: 0.350 · B: 0.650

Confidence

0.310

Judge version

jev-1.13.0

Judged at

Sep 28, 2026, 08:47 UTC

Answer A

Nemotron 3 Ultra (free)

Answer B

GLM 5.3 Prime

Probabilities

A: 0.190 · B: 0.810

Confidence

0.620

Judge version

jev-1.13.0

Judged at

Sep 28, 2026, 08:47 UTC

Answer A

GPT-6 Luna

Answer B

GLM 5.3 Prime

Probabilities

A: 0.100 · B: 0.900

Confidence

0.790

Judge version

jev-1.13.0

Judged at

Sep 28, 2026, 08:47 UTC

Answer A

Claude Opus 5.5

Answer B

GLM 5.3 Prime

Probabilities

A: 0.550 · B: 0.450

Confidence

0.110

Judge version

jev-1.13.0

Judged at

Sep 28, 2026, 08:47 UTC

Answer A

MiMo-V2.6-Flash

Answer B

GLM 5.3 Prime

Probabilities

A: 0.160 · B: 0.840

Confidence

0.670

Judge version

jev-1.13.0

Judged at

Sep 28, 2026, 08:47 UTC

Answer A

Hy3

Answer B

GLM 5.3 Prime

Probabilities

A: 0.100 · B: 0.900

Confidence

0.800

Judge version

jev-1.13.0

Judged at

Sep 28, 2026, 08:47 UTC

Answer A

gpt-oss-20b (Nitro)

Answer B

GLM 5.3 Prime

Probabilities

A: 0.030 · B: 0.970

Confidence

0.950

Judge version

jev-1.13.0

Judged at

Sep 28, 2026, 08:47 UTC

Answer A

GLM 5.3 Prime

Answer B

Gemini 3.8 Flash

Probabilities

A: 0.960 · B: 0.040

Confidence

0.920

Judge version

jev-1.13.0

Judged at

Sep 28, 2026, 08:47 UTC

Answer A

GLM 5.3 Prime

Answer B

Solar Pro 4

Probabilities

A: 0.880 · B: 0.120

Confidence

0.760

Judge version

jev-1.13.0

Judged at

Sep 28, 2026, 08:47 UTC

Answer A

Ling 3.0 Flash

Answer B

GLM 5.3 Prime

Probabilities

A: 0.000 · B: 1.000

Confidence

1.000

Judge version

jev-1.13.0

Judged at

Sep 28, 2026, 08:47 UTC

Answer A

Mistral Medium 3.5

Answer B

GPT-6 Sol

Probabilities

A: 0.110 · B: 0.890

Confidence

0.780

Judge version

jev-1.13.0

Judged at

Sep 28, 2026, 08:47 UTC

Answer A

GLM 5.3 Prime

Answer B

gpt-oss-120b

Probabilities

A: 0.920 · B: 0.080

Confidence

0.850

Judge version

jev-1.13.0

Judged at

Sep 28, 2026, 08:47 UTC

Answer A

Mistral Medium 3.5

Answer B

DeepSeek V4.1 Flash

Probabilities

A: 0.020 · B: 0.980

Confidence

0.950

Judge version

jev-1.13.0

Judged at

Sep 28, 2026, 08:47 UTC

Answer A

GLM 5.3 Prime

Answer B

Mercury 2.5

Probabilities

A: 1.000 · B: 0.000

Confidence

1.000

Judge version

jev-1.13.0

Judged at

Sep 28, 2026, 08:47 UTC

Answer A

GLM 5.3 Flash

Answer B

Mistral Medium 3.5

Probabilities

A: 0.990 · B: 0.010

Confidence

0.980

Judge version

jev-1.13.0

Judged at

Sep 28, 2026, 08:47 UTC

Answer A

GLM 5.3 Prime

Answer B

Qwen3.7 Flash

Probabilities

A: 0.980 · B: 0.020

Confidence

0.960

Judge version

jev-1.13.0

Judged at

Sep 28, 2026, 08:47 UTC

Answer A

Space Bunny Alpha

Answer B

Mistral Medium 3.5

Probabilities

A: 0.980 · B: 0.020

Confidence

0.950

Judge version

jev-1.13.0

Judged at

Sep 28, 2026, 08:47 UTC

Answer A

Mistral Medium 3.5

Answer B

Hy4 preview

Probabilities

A: 0.030 · B: 0.970

Confidence

0.940

Judge version

jev-1.13.0

Judged at

Sep 28, 2026, 08:47 UTC

Answer A

Mistral Medium 3.5

Answer B

GPT-6 Luna

Probabilities

A: 0.140 · B: 0.860

Confidence

0.730

Judge version

jev-1.13.0

Judged at

Sep 28, 2026, 08:47 UTC

Answer A

MiniMax M2.7 (Nitro)

Answer B

GLM 5.3 Prime

Probabilities

A: 0.190 · B: 0.810

Confidence

0.610

Judge version

jev-1.13.0

Judged at

Sep 28, 2026, 08:47 UTC

Answer A

Claude Opus 5.5

Answer B

Mistral Medium 3.5

Probabilities

A: 0.990 · B: 0.010

Confidence

0.990

Judge version

jev-1.13.0

Judged at

Sep 28, 2026, 08:47 UTC

Answer A

Mistral Medium 3.5

Answer B

Nemotron 3 Ultra (free)

Probabilities

A: 0.140 · B: 0.860

Confidence

0.720

Judge version

jev-1.13.0

Judged at

Sep 28, 2026, 08:47 UTC

Answer A

Mistral Medium 3.5

Answer B

MiMo-V2.6-Flash

Probabilities

A: 0.050 · B: 0.950

Confidence

0.890

Judge version

jev-1.13.0

Judged at

Sep 28, 2026, 08:47 UTC

Answer A

Hy3

Answer B

Mistral Medium 3.5

Probabilities

A: 0.940 · B: 0.060

Confidence

0.870

Judge version

jev-1.13.0

Judged at

Sep 28, 2026, 08:47 UTC

Answer A

Solar Pro 4

Answer B

Mistral Medium 3.5

Probabilities

A: 0.990 · B: 0.010

Confidence

0.970

Judge version

jev-1.13.0

Judged at

Sep 28, 2026, 08:47 UTC

Answer A

MiniMax M2.7 (Nitro)

Answer B

Mistral Medium 3.5

Probabilities

A: 0.960 · B: 0.040

Confidence

0.930

Judge version

jev-1.13.0

Judged at

Sep 28, 2026, 08:47 UTC

Answer A

Mistral Medium 3.5

Answer B

Gemini 3.8 Flash

Probabilities

A: 0.140 · B: 0.860

Confidence

0.720

Judge version

jev-1.13.0

Judged at

Sep 28, 2026, 08:47 UTC

Answer A

Mistral Medium 3.5

Answer B

Ling 3.0 Flash

Probabilities

A: 0.980 · B: 0.020

Confidence

0.960

Judge version

jev-1.13.0

Judged at

Sep 28, 2026, 08:47 UTC

Answer A

GPT-6 Luna

Answer B

Claude Opus 5.5

Probabilities

A: 0.080 · B: 0.920

Confidence

0.840

Judge version

jev-1.13.0

Judged at

Sep 28, 2026, 08:47 UTC

Answer A

GPT-6 Sol

Answer B

Claude Opus 5.5

Probabilities

A: 0.130 · B: 0.870

Confidence

0.750

Judge version

jev-1.13.0

Judged at

Sep 28, 2026, 08:47 UTC

Answer A

DeepSeek V4.1 Flash

Answer B

Claude Opus 5.5

Probabilities

A: 0.470 · B: 0.530

Confidence

0.070

Judge version

jev-1.13.0

Judged at

Sep 28, 2026, 08:47 UTC

Answer A

Mistral Medium 3.5

Answer B

Mercury 2.5

Probabilities

A: 0.820 · B: 0.180

Confidence

0.640

Judge version

jev-1.13.0

Judged at

Sep 28, 2026, 08:47 UTC

Answer A

Mistral Medium 3.5

Answer B

gpt-oss-120b

Probabilities

A: 0.080 · B: 0.920

Confidence

0.850

Judge version

jev-1.13.0

Judged at

Sep 28, 2026, 08:47 UTC

Answer A

GLM 5.3 Flash

Answer B

Claude Opus 5.5

Probabilities

A: 0.480 · B: 0.520

Confidence

0.040

Judge version

jev-1.13.0

Judged at

Sep 28, 2026, 08:47 UTC

Answer A

Claude Opus 5.5

Answer B

Space Bunny Alpha

Probabilities

A: 0.860 · B: 0.140

Confidence

0.730

Judge version

jev-1.13.0

Judged at

Sep 28, 2026, 08:47 UTC

Answer A

Mistral Medium 3.5

Answer B

Qwen3.7 Flash

Probabilities

A: 0.250 · B: 0.750

Confidence

0.500

Judge version

jev-1.13.0

Judged at

Sep 28, 2026, 08:47 UTC

Answer A

gpt-oss-20b (Nitro)

Answer B

Mistral Medium 3.5

Probabilities

A: 0.760 · B: 0.240

Confidence

0.510

Judge version

jev-1.13.0

Judged at

Sep 28, 2026, 08:47 UTC

Answer A

Hy4 preview

Answer B

Claude Opus 5.5

Probabilities

A: 0.510 · B: 0.490

Confidence

0.010

Judge version

jev-1.13.0

Judged at

Sep 28, 2026, 08:47 UTC

Answer A

Mercury 2.5

Answer B

Claude Opus 5.5

Probabilities

A: 0.000 · B: 1.000

Confidence

0.990

Judge version

jev-1.13.0

Judged at

Sep 28, 2026, 08:47 UTC

Answer A

Nemotron 3 Ultra (free)

Answer B

Claude Opus 5.5

Probabilities

A: 0.240 · B: 0.760

Confidence

0.510

Judge version

jev-1.13.0

Judged at

Sep 28, 2026, 08:47 UTC

Answer A

Claude Opus 5.5

Answer B

MiMo-V2.6-Flash

Probabilities

A: 0.880 · B: 0.120

Confidence

0.760

Judge version

jev-1.13.0

Judged at

Sep 28, 2026, 08:47 UTC

Answer A

Claude Opus 5.5

Answer B

Hy3

Probabilities

A: 0.960 · B: 0.040

Confidence

0.920

Judge version

jev-1.13.0

Judged at

Sep 28, 2026, 08:47 UTC

Answer A

Claude Opus 5.5

Answer B

Gemini 3.8 Flash

Probabilities

A: 0.970 · B: 0.030

Confidence

0.950

Judge version

jev-1.13.0

Judged at

Sep 28, 2026, 08:47 UTC

Answer A

Claude Opus 5.5

Answer B

Solar Pro 4

Probabilities

A: 0.850 · B: 0.150

Confidence

0.690

Judge version

jev-1.13.0

Judged at

Sep 28, 2026, 08:47 UTC

Answer A

Claude Opus 5.5

Answer B

Ling 3.0 Flash

Probabilities

A: 1.000 · B: 0.000

Confidence

1.000

Judge version

jev-1.13.0

Judged at

Sep 28, 2026, 08:47 UTC

Answer A

Claude Opus 5.5

Answer B

gpt-oss-120b

Probabilities

A: 0.920 · B: 0.080

Confidence

0.840

Judge version

jev-1.13.0

Judged at

Sep 28, 2026, 08:47 UTC

Answer A

GPT-6 Luna

Answer B

GPT-6 Sol

Probabilities

A: 0.500 · B: 0.500

Confidence

0.000

Judge version

jev-1.13.0

Judged at

Sep 28, 2026, 08:47 UTC

Answer A

DeepSeek V4.1 Flash

Answer B

GPT-6 Luna

Probabilities

A: 0.920 · B: 0.080

Confidence

0.850

Judge version

jev-1.13.0

Judged at

Sep 28, 2026, 08:47 UTC

Answer A

GLM 5.3 Flash

Answer B

GPT-6 Luna

Probabilities

A: 0.910 · B: 0.090

Confidence

0.820

Judge version

jev-1.13.0

Judged at

Sep 28, 2026, 08:47 UTC

Answer A

Space Bunny Alpha

Answer B

GPT-6 Luna

Probabilities

A: 0.830 · B: 0.170

Confidence

0.670

Judge version

jev-1.13.0

Judged at

Sep 28, 2026, 08:47 UTC

Answer A

gpt-oss-20b (Nitro)

Answer B

Claude Opus 5.5

Probabilities

A: 0.020 · B: 0.980

Confidence

0.950

Judge version

jev-1.13.0

Judged at

Sep 28, 2026, 08:47 UTC

Answer A

Claude Opus 5.5

Answer B

Qwen3.7 Flash

Probabilities

A: 0.980 · B: 0.020

Confidence

0.960

Judge version

jev-1.13.0

Judged at

Sep 28, 2026, 08:47 UTC

Answer A

Hy4 preview

Answer B

GPT-6 Luna

Probabilities

A: 0.890 · B: 0.110

Confidence

0.770

Judge version

jev-1.13.0

Judged at

Sep 28, 2026, 08:47 UTC

Answer A

Nemotron 3 Ultra (free)

Answer B

GPT-6 Luna

Probabilities

A: 0.660 · B: 0.340

Confidence

0.320

Judge version

jev-1.13.0

Judged at

Sep 28, 2026, 08:47 UTC

Answer A

MiMo-V2.6-Flash

Answer B

GPT-6 Luna

Probabilities

A: 0.820 · B: 0.180

Confidence

0.640

Judge version

jev-1.13.0

Judged at

Sep 28, 2026, 08:47 UTC

Answer A

Claude Opus 5.5

Answer B

MiniMax M2.7 (Nitro)

Probabilities

A: 0.930 · B: 0.070

Confidence

0.860

Judge version

jev-1.13.0

Judged at

Sep 28, 2026, 08:47 UTC

Answer A

Hy3

Answer B

GPT-6 Luna

Probabilities

A: 0.450 · B: 0.550

Confidence

0.110

Judge version

jev-1.13.0

Judged at

Sep 28, 2026, 08:47 UTC

Answer A

GPT-6 Luna

Answer B

Gemini 3.8 Flash

Probabilities

A: 0.590 · B: 0.410

Confidence

0.190

Judge version

jev-1.13.0

Judged at

Sep 28, 2026, 08:47 UTC

Answer A

Solar Pro 4

Answer B

GPT-6 Luna

Probabilities

A: 0.830 · B: 0.170

Confidence

0.660

Judge version

jev-1.13.0

Judged at

Sep 28, 2026, 08:47 UTC

Answer A

gpt-oss-20b (Nitro)

Answer B

GPT-6 Luna

Probabilities

A: 0.160 · B: 0.840

Confidence

0.680

Judge version

jev-1.13.0

Judged at

Sep 28, 2026, 08:47 UTC

Answer A

GPT-6 Luna

Answer B

Mercury 2.5

Probabilities

A: 0.980 · B: 0.020

Confidence

0.970

Judge version

jev-1.13.0

Judged at

Sep 28, 2026, 08:47 UTC

Answer A

GPT-6 Luna

Answer B

Qwen3.7 Flash

Probabilities

A: 0.690 · B: 0.310

Confidence

0.390

Judge version

jev-1.13.0

Judged at

Sep 28, 2026, 08:47 UTC

Answer A

GPT-6 Luna

Answer B

gpt-oss-120b

Probabilities

A: 0.540 · B: 0.460

Confidence

0.080

Judge version

jev-1.13.0

Judged at

Sep 28, 2026, 08:47 UTC

Answer A

GPT-6 Luna

Answer B

Ling 3.0 Flash

Probabilities

A: 1.000 · B: 0.000

Confidence

0.990

Judge version

jev-1.13.0

Judged at

Sep 28, 2026, 08:47 UTC

Answer A

Space Bunny Alpha

Answer B

GPT-6 Sol

Probabilities

A: 0.800 · B: 0.200

Confidence

0.610

Judge version

jev-1.13.0

Judged at

Sep 28, 2026, 08:47 UTC

Answer A

GPT-6 Sol

Answer B

Hy4 preview

Probabilities

A: 0.140 · B: 0.860

Confidence

0.720

Judge version

jev-1.13.0

Judged at

Sep 28, 2026, 08:47 UTC

Answer A

GPT-6 Sol

Answer B

Nemotron 3 Ultra (free)

Probabilities

A: 0.430 · B: 0.570

Confidence

0.130

Judge version

jev-1.13.0

Judged at

Sep 28, 2026, 08:47 UTC

Answer A

GPT-6 Sol

Answer B

MiMo-V2.6-Flash

Probabilities

A: 0.340 · B: 0.660

Confidence

0.310

Judge version

jev-1.13.0

Judged at

Sep 28, 2026, 08:47 UTC

Answer A

Hy3

Answer B

GPT-6 Sol

Probabilities

A: 0.420 · B: 0.580

Confidence

0.160

Judge version

jev-1.13.0

Judged at

Sep 28, 2026, 08:47 UTC

Answer A

DeepSeek V4.1 Flash

Answer B

GPT-6 Sol

Probabilities

A: 0.900 · B: 0.100

Confidence

0.800

Judge version

jev-1.13.0

Judged at

Sep 28, 2026, 08:47 UTC

Answer A

GLM 5.3 Flash

Answer B

GPT-6 Sol

Probabilities

A: 0.890 · B: 0.110

Confidence

0.780

Judge version

jev-1.13.0

Judged at

Sep 28, 2026, 08:47 UTC

Answer A

Gemini 3.8 Flash

Answer B

GPT-6 Sol

Probabilities

A: 0.480 · B: 0.520

Confidence

0.040

Judge version

jev-1.13.0

Judged at

Sep 28, 2026, 08:47 UTC

Answer A

Solar Pro 4

Answer B

GPT-6 Sol

Probabilities

A: 0.850 · B: 0.150

Confidence

0.690

Judge version

jev-1.13.0

Judged at

Sep 28, 2026, 08:47 UTC

Answer A

GPT-6 Luna

Answer B

MiniMax M2.7 (Nitro)

Probabilities

A: 0.450 · B: 0.550

Confidence

0.100

Judge version

jev-1.13.0

Judged at

Sep 28, 2026, 08:47 UTC

Answer A

Ling 3.0 Flash

Answer B

GPT-6 Sol

Probabilities

A: 0.000 · B: 1.000

Confidence

0.990

Judge version

jev-1.13.0

Judged at

Sep 28, 2026, 08:47 UTC

Answer A

Mercury 2.5

Answer B

GPT-6 Sol

Probabilities

A: 0.030 · B: 0.970

Confidence

0.950

Judge version

jev-1.13.0

Judged at

Sep 28, 2026, 08:47 UTC

Answer A

Space Bunny Alpha

Answer B

DeepSeek V4.1 Flash

Probabilities

A: 0.550 · B: 0.450

Confidence

0.110

Judge version

jev-1.13.0

Judged at

Sep 28, 2026, 08:47 UTC

Answer A

gpt-oss-120b

Answer B

GPT-6 Sol

Probabilities

A: 0.590 · B: 0.410

Confidence

0.180

Judge version

jev-1.13.0

Judged at

Sep 28, 2026, 08:47 UTC

Answer A

GPT-6 Sol

Answer B

Qwen3.7 Flash

Probabilities

A: 0.740 · B: 0.260

Confidence

0.480

Judge version

jev-1.13.0

Judged at

Sep 28, 2026, 08:47 UTC

Answer A

MiMo-V2.6-Flash

Answer B

DeepSeek V4.1 Flash

Probabilities

A: 0.460 · B: 0.540

Confidence

0.080

Judge version

jev-1.13.0

Judged at

Sep 28, 2026, 08:47 UTC

Answer A

DeepSeek V4.1 Flash

Answer B

Hy3

Probabilities

A: 0.970 · B: 0.030

Confidence

0.930

Judge version

jev-1.13.0

Judged at

Sep 28, 2026, 08:47 UTC

Answer A

MiniMax M2.7 (Nitro)

Answer B

GPT-6 Sol

Probabilities

A: 0.710 · B: 0.290

Confidence

0.430

Judge version

jev-1.13.0

Judged at

Sep 28, 2026, 08:47 UTC

Answer A

GPT-6 Sol

Answer B

gpt-oss-20b (Nitro)

Probabilities

A: 0.860 · B: 0.140

Confidence

0.730

Judge version

jev-1.13.0

Judged at

Sep 28, 2026, 08:47 UTC

Answer A

Gemini 3.8 Flash

Answer B

DeepSeek V4.1 Flash

Probabilities

A: 0.280 · B: 0.720

Confidence

0.440

Judge version

jev-1.13.0

Judged at

Sep 28, 2026, 08:47 UTC

Answer A

DeepSeek V4.1 Flash

Answer B

Solar Pro 4

Probabilities

A: 0.800 · B: 0.200

Confidence

0.600

Judge version

jev-1.13.0

Judged at

Sep 28, 2026, 08:47 UTC

Answer A

DeepSeek V4.1 Flash

Answer B

Hy4 preview

Probabilities

A: 0.610 · B: 0.390

Confidence

0.220

Judge version

jev-1.13.0

Judged at

Sep 28, 2026, 08:47 UTC

Answer A

DeepSeek V4.1 Flash

Answer B

GLM 5.3 Flash

Probabilities

A: 0.700 · B: 0.300

Confidence

0.400

Judge version

jev-1.13.0

Judged at

Sep 28, 2026, 08:47 UTC

Answer A

Ling 3.0 Flash

Answer B

DeepSeek V4.1 Flash

Probabilities

A: 0.000 · B: 1.000

Confidence

1.000

Judge version

jev-1.13.0

Judged at

Sep 28, 2026, 08:47 UTC

Answer A

gpt-oss-120b

Answer B

DeepSeek V4.1 Flash

Probabilities

A: 0.420 · B: 0.580

Confidence

0.150

Judge version

jev-1.13.0

Judged at

Sep 28, 2026, 08:47 UTC

Answer A

DeepSeek V4.1 Flash

Answer B

Mercury 2.5

Probabilities

A: 1.000 · B: 0.000

Confidence

1.000

Judge version

jev-1.13.0

Judged at

Sep 28, 2026, 08:47 UTC

Answer A

DeepSeek V4.1 Flash

Answer B

Nemotron 3 Ultra (free)

Probabilities

A: 0.850 · B: 0.150

Confidence

0.700

Judge version

jev-1.13.0

Judged at

Sep 28, 2026, 08:47 UTC

Answer A

DeepSeek V4.1 Flash

Answer B

Qwen3.7 Flash

Probabilities

A: 0.960 · B: 0.040

Confidence

0.930

Judge version

jev-1.13.0

Judged at

Sep 28, 2026, 08:47 UTC

Answer A

DeepSeek V4.1 Flash

Answer B

gpt-oss-20b (Nitro)

Probabilities

A: 0.980 · B: 0.020

Confidence

0.960

Judge version

jev-1.13.0

Judged at

Sep 28, 2026, 08:47 UTC

Answer A

Hy3

Answer B

GLM 5.3 Flash

Probabilities

A: 0.250 · B: 0.750

Confidence

0.500

Judge version

jev-1.13.0

Judged at

Sep 28, 2026, 08:47 UTC

Answer A

Space Bunny Alpha

Answer B

GLM 5.3 Flash

Probabilities

A: 0.560 · B: 0.440

Confidence

0.120

Judge version

jev-1.13.0

Judged at

Sep 28, 2026, 08:47 UTC

Answer A

Hy4 preview

Answer B

GLM 5.3 Flash

Probabilities

A: 0.640 · B: 0.360

Confidence

0.290

Judge version

jev-1.13.0

Judged at

Sep 28, 2026, 08:47 UTC

Answer A

MiniMax M2.7 (Nitro)

Answer B

DeepSeek V4.1 Flash

Probabilities

A: 0.420 · B: 0.580

Confidence

0.150

Judge version

jev-1.13.0

Judged at

Sep 28, 2026, 08:47 UTC

Answer A

GLM 5.3 Flash

Answer B

Ling 3.0 Flash

Probabilities

A: 1.000 · B: 0.000

Confidence

1.000

Judge version

jev-1.13.0

Judged at

Sep 28, 2026, 08:47 UTC

Answer A

Space Bunny Alpha

Answer B

Hy3

Probabilities

A: 0.890 · B: 0.110

Confidence

0.770

Judge version

jev-1.13.0

Judged at

Sep 28, 2026, 08:47 UTC

Answer A

gpt-oss-120b

Answer B

GLM 5.3 Flash

Probabilities

A: 0.380 · B: 0.620

Confidence

0.230

Judge version

jev-1.13.0

Judged at

Sep 28, 2026, 08:47 UTC

Answer A

Mercury 2.5

Answer B

GLM 5.3 Flash

Probabilities

A: 0.010 · B: 0.990

Confidence

0.980

Judge version

jev-1.13.0

Judged at

Sep 28, 2026, 08:47 UTC

Answer A

Nemotron 3 Ultra (free)

Answer B

GLM 5.3 Flash

Probabilities

A: 0.350 · B: 0.650

Confidence

0.300

Judge version

jev-1.13.0

Judged at

Sep 28, 2026, 08:47 UTC

Answer A

GLM 5.3 Flash

Answer B

Qwen3.7 Flash

Probabilities

A: 0.970 · B: 0.030

Confidence

0.950

Judge version

jev-1.13.0

Judged at

Sep 28, 2026, 08:47 UTC

Answer A

MiMo-V2.6-Flash

Answer B

GLM 5.3 Flash

Probabilities

A: 0.310 · B: 0.690

Confidence

0.380

Judge version

jev-1.13.0

Judged at

Sep 28, 2026, 08:47 UTC

Answer A

GLM 5.3 Flash

Answer B

gpt-oss-20b (Nitro)

Probabilities

A: 0.980 · B: 0.020

Confidence

0.970

Judge version

jev-1.13.0

Judged at

Sep 28, 2026, 08:47 UTC

Answer A

GLM 5.3 Flash

Answer B

MiniMax M2.7 (Nitro)

Probabilities

A: 0.900 · B: 0.100

Confidence

0.790

Judge version

jev-1.13.0

Judged at

Sep 28, 2026, 08:47 UTC

Answer A

Solar Pro 4

Answer B

GLM 5.3 Flash

Probabilities

A: 0.470 · B: 0.530

Confidence

0.060

Judge version

jev-1.13.0

Judged at

Sep 28, 2026, 08:47 UTC

Answer A

Gemini 3.8 Flash

Answer B

GLM 5.3 Flash

Probabilities

A: 0.180 · B: 0.820

Confidence

0.640

Judge version

jev-1.13.0

Judged at

Sep 28, 2026, 08:47 UTC

Answer A

Space Bunny Alpha

Answer B

Hy4 preview

Probabilities

A: 0.470 · B: 0.530

Confidence

0.050

Judge version

jev-1.13.0

Judged at

Sep 28, 2026, 08:47 UTC

Answer A

Nemotron 3 Ultra (free)

Answer B

Space Bunny Alpha

Probabilities

A: 0.450 · B: 0.550

Confidence

0.090

Judge version

jev-1.13.0

Judged at

Sep 28, 2026, 08:47 UTC

Answer A

gpt-oss-120b

Answer B

Space Bunny Alpha

Probabilities

A: 0.440 · B: 0.560

Confidence

0.130

Judge version

jev-1.13.0

Judged at

Sep 28, 2026, 08:47 UTC

Answer A

Space Bunny Alpha

Answer B

MiMo-V2.6-Flash

Probabilities

A: 0.770 · B: 0.230

Confidence

0.530

Judge version

jev-1.13.0

Judged at

Sep 28, 2026, 08:47 UTC

Answer A

Gemini 3.8 Flash

Answer B

Space Bunny Alpha

Probabilities

A: 0.290 · B: 0.710

Confidence

0.420

Judge version

jev-1.13.0

Judged at

Sep 28, 2026, 08:47 UTC

Answer A

Space Bunny Alpha

Answer B

Qwen3.7 Flash

Probabilities

A: 0.910 · B: 0.090

Confidence

0.820

Judge version

jev-1.13.0

Judged at

Sep 28, 2026, 08:47 UTC

Answer A

Space Bunny Alpha

Answer B

gpt-oss-20b (Nitro)

Probabilities

A: 0.960 · B: 0.040

Confidence

0.920

Judge version

jev-1.13.0

Judged at

Sep 28, 2026, 08:47 UTC

Answer A

MiniMax M2.7 (Nitro)

Answer B

Space Bunny Alpha

Probabilities

A: 0.470 · B: 0.530

Confidence

0.060

Judge version

jev-1.13.0

Judged at

Sep 28, 2026, 08:47 UTC

Answer A

Nemotron 3 Ultra (free)

Answer B

Hy4 preview

Probabilities

A: 0.320 · B: 0.680

Confidence

0.360

Judge version

jev-1.13.0

Judged at

Sep 28, 2026, 08:47 UTC

Answer A

Space Bunny Alpha

Answer B

Ling 3.0 Flash

Probabilities

A: 1.000 · B: 0.000

Confidence

1.000

Judge version

jev-1.13.0

Judged at

Sep 28, 2026, 08:47 UTC

Answer A

Space Bunny Alpha

Answer B

Mercury 2.5

Probabilities

A: 1.000 · B: 0.000

Confidence

0.990

Judge version

jev-1.13.0

Judged at

Sep 28, 2026, 08:47 UTC

Answer A

Space Bunny Alpha

Answer B

Solar Pro 4

Probabilities

A: 0.670 · B: 0.330

Confidence

0.340

Judge version

jev-1.13.0

Judged at

Sep 28, 2026, 08:47 UTC

Answer A

Hy4 preview

Answer B

MiMo-V2.6-Flash

Probabilities

A: 0.810 · B: 0.190

Confidence

0.610

Judge version

jev-1.13.0

Judged at

Sep 28, 2026, 08:47 UTC

Answer A

Hy4 preview

Answer B

Hy3

Probabilities

A: 0.930 · B: 0.070

Confidence

0.860

Judge version

jev-1.13.0

Judged at

Sep 28, 2026, 08:47 UTC

Answer A

Hy4 preview

Answer B

Gemini 3.8 Flash

Probabilities

A: 0.960 · B: 0.040

Confidence

0.930

Judge version

jev-1.13.0

Judged at

Sep 28, 2026, 08:47 UTC

Answer A

Hy4 preview

Answer B

Solar Pro 4

Probabilities

A: 0.810 · B: 0.190

Confidence

0.610

Judge version

jev-1.13.0

Judged at

Sep 28, 2026, 08:47 UTC

Answer A

Hy4 preview

Answer B

Ling 3.0 Flash

Probabilities

A: 1.000 · B: 0.000

Confidence

1.000

Judge version

jev-1.13.0

Judged at

Sep 28, 2026, 08:47 UTC

Answer A

Hy4 preview

Answer B

gpt-oss-120b

Probabilities

A: 0.820 · B: 0.180

Confidence

0.630

Judge version

jev-1.13.0

Judged at

Sep 28, 2026, 08:47 UTC

Answer A

Hy4 preview

Answer B

Qwen3.7 Flash

Probabilities

A: 0.950 · B: 0.050

Confidence

0.910

Judge version

jev-1.13.0

Judged at

Sep 28, 2026, 08:47 UTC

Answer A

Nemotron 3 Ultra (free)

Answer B

MiMo-V2.6-Flash

Probabilities

A: 0.500 · B: 0.500

Confidence

0.010

Judge version

jev-1.13.0

Judged at

Sep 28, 2026, 08:47 UTC

Answer A

Hy4 preview

Answer B

Mercury 2.5

Probabilities

A: 1.000 · B: 0.000

Confidence

1.000

Judge version

jev-1.13.0

Judged at

Sep 28, 2026, 08:47 UTC

Answer A

Ling 3.0 Flash

Answer B

Nemotron 3 Ultra (free)

Probabilities

A: 0.000 · B: 1.000

Confidence

0.990

Judge version

jev-1.13.0

Judged at

Sep 28, 2026, 08:47 UTC

Answer A

gpt-oss-120b

Answer B

Nemotron 3 Ultra (free)

Probabilities

A: 0.710 · B: 0.290

Confidence

0.430

Judge version

jev-1.13.0

Judged at

Sep 28, 2026, 08:47 UTC

Answer A

Nemotron 3 Ultra (free)

Answer B

Hy3

Probabilities

A: 0.690 · B: 0.310

Confidence

0.390

Judge version

jev-1.13.0

Judged at

Sep 28, 2026, 08:47 UTC

Answer A

MiniMax M2.7 (Nitro)

Answer B

Hy4 preview

Probabilities

A: 0.370 · B: 0.630

Confidence

0.260

Judge version

jev-1.13.0

Judged at

Sep 28, 2026, 08:47 UTC

Answer A

Hy4 preview

Answer B

gpt-oss-20b (Nitro)

Probabilities

A: 0.990 · B: 0.010

Confidence

0.970

Judge version

jev-1.13.0

Judged at

Sep 28, 2026, 08:47 UTC

Answer A

Mercury 2.5

Answer B

Nemotron 3 Ultra (free)

Probabilities

A: 0.030 · B: 0.970

Confidence

0.930

Judge version

jev-1.13.0

Judged at

Sep 28, 2026, 08:47 UTC

Answer A

Qwen3.7 Flash

Answer B

Nemotron 3 Ultra (free)

Probabilities

A: 0.320 · B: 0.680

Confidence

0.350

Judge version

jev-1.13.0

Judged at

Sep 28, 2026, 08:47 UTC

Answer A

Nemotron 3 Ultra (free)

Answer B

gpt-oss-20b (Nitro)

Probabilities

A: 0.960 · B: 0.040

Confidence

0.920

Judge version

jev-1.13.0

Judged at

Sep 28, 2026, 08:47 UTC

Answer A

Nemotron 3 Ultra (free)

Answer B

MiniMax M2.7 (Nitro)

Probabilities

A: 0.650 · B: 0.350

Confidence

0.290

Judge version

jev-1.13.0

Judged at

Sep 28, 2026, 08:47 UTC

Answer A

Nemotron 3 Ultra (free)

Answer B

Solar Pro 4

Probabilities

A: 0.460 · B: 0.540

Confidence

0.070

Judge version

jev-1.13.0

Judged at

Sep 28, 2026, 08:47 UTC

Answer A

Nemotron 3 Ultra (free)

Answer B

Gemini 3.8 Flash

Probabilities

A: 0.740 · B: 0.260

Confidence

0.490

Judge version

jev-1.13.0

Judged at

Sep 28, 2026, 08:47 UTC

Answer A

MiMo-V2.6-Flash

Answer B

Hy3

Probabilities

A: 0.800 · B: 0.200

Confidence

0.600

Judge version

jev-1.13.0

Judged at

Sep 28, 2026, 08:47 UTC

Answer A

Gemini 3.8 Flash

Answer B

MiMo-V2.6-Flash

Probabilities

A: 0.380 · B: 0.620

Confidence

0.240

Judge version

jev-1.13.0

Judged at

Sep 28, 2026, 08:47 UTC

Answer A

MiMo-V2.6-Flash

Answer B

MiniMax M2.7 (Nitro)

Probabilities

A: 0.700 · B: 0.300

Confidence

0.400

Judge version

jev-1.13.0

Judged at

Sep 28, 2026, 08:47 UTC

Answer A

Solar Pro 4

Answer B

MiMo-V2.6-Flash

Probabilities

A: 0.770 · B: 0.230

Confidence

0.540

Judge version

jev-1.13.0

Judged at

Sep 28, 2026, 08:47 UTC

Answer A

Ling 3.0 Flash

Answer B

MiMo-V2.6-Flash

Probabilities

A: 0.000 · B: 1.000

Confidence

1.000

Judge version

jev-1.13.0

Judged at

Sep 28, 2026, 08:47 UTC

Answer A

MiMo-V2.6-Flash

Answer B

Mercury 2.5

Probabilities

A: 1.000 · B: 0.000

Confidence

0.990

Judge version

jev-1.13.0

Judged at

Sep 28, 2026, 08:47 UTC

Answer A

gpt-oss-120b

Answer B

MiMo-V2.6-Flash

Probabilities

A: 0.480 · B: 0.520

Confidence

0.040

Judge version

jev-1.13.0

Judged at

Sep 28, 2026, 08:47 UTC

Answer A

Hy3

Answer B

gpt-oss-120b

Probabilities

A: 0.470 · B: 0.530

Confidence

0.050

Judge version

jev-1.13.0

Judged at

Sep 28, 2026, 08:47 UTC

Answer A

Mercury 2.5

Answer B

Hy3

Probabilities

A: 0.020 · B: 0.980

Confidence

0.960

Judge version

jev-1.13.0

Judged at

Sep 28, 2026, 08:47 UTC

Answer A

MiMo-V2.6-Flash

Answer B

Qwen3.7 Flash

Probabilities

A: 0.940 · B: 0.060

Confidence

0.880

Judge version

jev-1.13.0

Judged at

Sep 28, 2026, 08:47 UTC

Answer A

gpt-oss-20b (Nitro)

Answer B

MiMo-V2.6-Flash

Probabilities

A: 0.090 · B: 0.910

Confidence

0.820

Judge version

jev-1.13.0

Judged at

Sep 28, 2026, 08:47 UTC

Answer A

Hy3

Answer B

Qwen3.7 Flash

Probabilities

A: 0.760 · B: 0.240

Confidence

0.520

Judge version

jev-1.13.0

Judged at

Sep 28, 2026, 08:47 UTC

Answer A

Gemini 3.8 Flash

Answer B

MiniMax M2.7 (Nitro)

Probabilities

A: 0.390 · B: 0.610

Confidence

0.210

Judge version

jev-1.13.0

Judged at

Sep 28, 2026, 08:47 UTC

Answer A

Hy3

Answer B

gpt-oss-20b (Nitro)

Probabilities

A: 0.940 · B: 0.060

Confidence

0.880

Judge version

jev-1.13.0

Judged at

Sep 28, 2026, 08:47 UTC

Answer A

Hy3

Answer B

MiniMax M2.7 (Nitro)

Probabilities

A: 0.440 · B: 0.560

Confidence

0.120

Judge version

jev-1.13.0

Judged at

Sep 28, 2026, 08:47 UTC

Answer A

Hy3

Answer B

Ling 3.0 Flash

Probabilities

A: 1.000 · B: 0.000

Confidence

0.990

Judge version

jev-1.13.0

Judged at

Sep 28, 2026, 08:47 UTC

Answer A

Hy3

Answer B

Gemini 3.8 Flash

Probabilities

A: 0.700 · B: 0.300

Confidence

0.410

Judge version

jev-1.13.0

Judged at

Sep 28, 2026, 08:47 UTC

Answer A

Hy3

Answer B

Solar Pro 4

Probabilities

A: 0.340 · B: 0.660

Confidence

0.320

Judge version

jev-1.13.0

Judged at

Sep 28, 2026, 08:47 UTC

Answer A

Solar Pro 4

Answer B

Gemini 3.8 Flash

Probabilities

A: 0.920 · B: 0.080

Confidence

0.840

Judge version

jev-1.13.0

Judged at

Sep 28, 2026, 08:47 UTC

Answer A

Gemini 3.8 Flash

Answer B

Ling 3.0 Flash

Probabilities

A: 1.000 · B: 0.000

Confidence

0.990

Judge version

jev-1.13.0

Judged at

Sep 28, 2026, 08:47 UTC

Answer A

Gemini 3.8 Flash

Answer B

Mercury 2.5

Probabilities

A: 0.970 · B: 0.030

Confidence

0.950

Judge version

jev-1.13.0

Judged at

Sep 28, 2026, 08:47 UTC

Answer A

Gemini 3.8 Flash

Answer B

Qwen3.7 Flash

Probabilities

A: 0.760 · B: 0.240

Confidence

0.530

Judge version

jev-1.13.0

Judged at

Sep 28, 2026, 08:47 UTC

Answer A

Gemini 3.8 Flash

Answer B

gpt-oss-120b

Probabilities

A: 0.410 · B: 0.590

Confidence

0.190

Judge version

jev-1.13.0

Judged at

Sep 28, 2026, 08:47 UTC

Answer A

Qwen3.7 Flash

Answer B

Solar Pro 4

Probabilities

A: 0.140 · B: 0.860

Confidence

0.710

Judge version

jev-1.13.0

Judged at

Sep 28, 2026, 08:47 UTC

Answer A

Solar Pro 4

Answer B

gpt-oss-20b (Nitro)

Probabilities

A: 0.980 · B: 0.020

Confidence

0.960

Judge version

jev-1.13.0

Judged at

Sep 28, 2026, 08:47 UTC

Answer A

MiniMax M2.7 (Nitro)

Answer B

Solar Pro 4

Probabilities

A: 0.500 · B: 0.500

Confidence

0.000

Judge version

jev-1.13.0

Judged at

Sep 28, 2026, 08:47 UTC

Answer A

Ling 3.0 Flash

Answer B

Solar Pro 4

Probabilities

A: 0.000 · B: 1.000

Confidence

1.000

Judge version

jev-1.13.0

Judged at

Sep 28, 2026, 08:47 UTC

Answer A

gpt-oss-20b (Nitro)

Answer B

Gemini 3.8 Flash

Probabilities

A: 0.190 · B: 0.810

Confidence

0.620

Judge version

jev-1.13.0

Judged at

Sep 28, 2026, 08:47 UTC

Answer A

gpt-oss-120b

Answer B

Ling 3.0 Flash

Probabilities

A: 0.990 · B: 0.010

Confidence

0.980

Judge version

jev-1.13.0

Judged at

Sep 28, 2026, 08:47 UTC

Answer A

Ling 3.0 Flash

Answer B

Mercury 2.5

Probabilities

A: 0.080 · B: 0.920

Confidence

0.850

Judge version

jev-1.13.0

Judged at

Sep 28, 2026, 08:47 UTC

Answer A

Ling 3.0 Flash

Answer B

Qwen3.7 Flash

Probabilities

A: 0.000 · B: 1.000

Confidence

0.990

Judge version

jev-1.13.0

Judged at

Sep 28, 2026, 08:47 UTC

Answer A

gpt-oss-120b

Answer B

Solar Pro 4

Probabilities

A: 0.490 · B: 0.510

Confidence

0.030

Judge version

jev-1.13.0

Judged at

Sep 28, 2026, 08:47 UTC

Answer A

Mercury 2.5

Answer B

Solar Pro 4

Probabilities

A: 0.010 · B: 0.990

Confidence

0.980

Judge version

jev-1.13.0

Judged at

Sep 28, 2026, 08:47 UTC

Answer A

Ling 3.0 Flash

Answer B

gpt-oss-20b (Nitro)

Probabilities

A: 0.010 · B: 0.990

Confidence

0.970

Judge version

jev-1.13.0

Judged at

Sep 28, 2026, 08:47 UTC

Answer A

Ling 3.0 Flash

Answer B

MiniMax M2.7 (Nitro)

Probabilities

A: 0.000 · B: 1.000

Confidence

0.990

Judge version

jev-1.13.0

Judged at

Sep 28, 2026, 08:47 UTC

Answer A

gpt-oss-120b

Answer B

Mercury 2.5

Probabilities

A: 0.990 · B: 0.010

Confidence

0.970

Judge version

jev-1.13.0

Judged at

Sep 28, 2026, 08:47 UTC

Answer A

Qwen3.7 Flash

Answer B

gpt-oss-120b

Probabilities

A: 0.300 · B: 0.700

Confidence

0.400

Judge version

jev-1.13.0

Judged at

Sep 28, 2026, 08:47 UTC

Answer A

gpt-oss-120b

Answer B

gpt-oss-20b (Nitro)

Probabilities

A: 0.920 · B: 0.080

Confidence

0.850

Judge version

jev-1.13.0

Judged at

Sep 28, 2026, 08:47 UTC

Answer A

gpt-oss-20b (Nitro)

Answer B

Qwen3.7 Flash

Probabilities

A: 0.390 · B: 0.610

Confidence

0.220

Judge version

jev-1.13.0

Judged at

Sep 28, 2026, 08:47 UTC

Answer A

gpt-oss-120b

Answer B

MiniMax M2.7 (Nitro)

Probabilities

A: 0.650 · B: 0.350

Confidence

0.300

Judge version

jev-1.13.0

Judged at

Sep 28, 2026, 08:47 UTC

Answer A

gpt-oss-20b (Nitro)

Answer B

Mercury 2.5

Probabilities

A: 0.910 · B: 0.090

Confidence

0.830

Judge version

jev-1.13.0

Judged at

Sep 28, 2026, 08:47 UTC

Answer A

Mercury 2.5

Answer B

MiniMax M2.7 (Nitro)

Probabilities

A: 0.020 · B: 0.980

Confidence

0.960

Judge version

jev-1.13.0

Judged at

Sep 28, 2026, 08:47 UTC

Answer A

Mercury 2.5

Answer B

Qwen3.7 Flash

Probabilities

A: 0.060 · B: 0.940

Confidence

0.870

Judge version

jev-1.13.0

Judged at

Sep 28, 2026, 08:47 UTC

Answer A

MiniMax M2.7 (Nitro)

Answer B

Qwen3.7 Flash

Probabilities

A: 0.820 · B: 0.180

Confidence

0.650

Judge version

jev-1.13.0

Judged at

Sep 28, 2026, 08:47 UTC

Answer A

gpt-oss-20b (Nitro)

Answer B

MiniMax M2.7 (Nitro)

Probabilities

A: 0.120 · B: 0.880

Confidence

0.770

Judge version

jev-1.13.0

Judged at

Sep 28, 2026, 08:47 UTC

Answer A

MiMo V2.6 Pro

Answer B

Muse Spark 1.3 Contributor

Probabilities

A: 0.590 · B: 0.410

Confidence

0.170

Judge version

jev-1.13.0

Judged at

Sep 28, 2026, 09:22 UTC

Answer A

Muse Spark 1.3 Contributor

Answer B

Claude Fable 5.1

Probabilities

A: 0.760 · B: 0.240

Confidence

0.520

Judge version

jev-1.13.0

Judged at

Sep 28, 2026, 09:22 UTC

Answer A

Muse Spark 1.3 Contributor

Answer B

GPT-6 Astra

Probabilities

A: 0.730 · B: 0.270

Confidence

0.460

Judge version

jev-1.13.0

Judged at

Sep 28, 2026, 09:22 UTC

Answer A

Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview

Answer B

Muse Spark 1.3 Contributor

Probabilities

A: 0.030 · B: 0.970

Confidence

0.940

Judge version

jev-1.13.0

Judged at

Sep 28, 2026, 09:22 UTC

Answer A

Mistral Medium 3.5

Answer B

Muse Spark 1.3 Contributor

Probabilities

A: 0.010 · B: 0.990

Confidence

0.980

Judge version

jev-1.13.0

Judged at

Sep 28, 2026, 09:22 UTC

Answer A

Muse Spark 1.3 Contributor

Answer B

Claude Opus 5.5

Probabilities

A: 0.660 · B: 0.340

Confidence

0.320

Judge version

jev-1.13.0

Judged at

Sep 28, 2026, 09:22 UTC

Answer A

GPT-6 Luna

Answer B

Muse Spark 1.3 Contributor

Probabilities

A: 0.070 · B: 0.930

Confidence

0.860

Judge version

jev-1.13.0

Judged at

Sep 28, 2026, 09:22 UTC

Answer A

Qwen3.8 Max Prime

Answer B

Muse Spark 1.3 Contributor

Probabilities

A: 0.050 · B: 0.950

Confidence

0.890

Judge version

jev-1.13.0

Judged at

Sep 28, 2026, 09:22 UTC

Answer A

DeepSeek V4 Pro

Answer B

Muse Spark 1.3 Contributor

Probabilities

A: 0.120 · B: 0.880

Confidence

0.770

Judge version

jev-1.13.0

Judged at

Sep 28, 2026, 09:22 UTC

Answer A

Muse Spark 1.3 Contributor

Answer B

GPT-6 Sol

Probabilities

A: 0.930 · B: 0.070

Confidence

0.860

Judge version

jev-1.13.0

Judged at

Sep 28, 2026, 09:22 UTC

Answer A

Muse Spark 1.3 Contributor

Answer B

DeepSeek V4.1 Flash

Probabilities

A: 0.780 · B: 0.220

Confidence

0.560

Judge version

jev-1.13.0

Judged at

Sep 28, 2026, 09:22 UTC

Answer A

GLM 5.3 Flash

Answer B

Muse Spark 1.3 Contributor

Probabilities

A: 0.500 · B: 0.500

Confidence

0.000

Judge version

jev-1.13.0

Judged at

Sep 28, 2026, 09:22 UTC

Answer A

Kimi K3

Answer B

Muse Spark 1.3 Contributor

Probabilities

A: 0.530 · B: 0.470

Confidence

0.050

Judge version

jev-1.13.0

Judged at

Sep 28, 2026, 09:22 UTC

Answer A

Muse Spark 1.3 Contributor

Answer B

GLM 5.3 Prime

Probabilities

A: 0.550 · B: 0.450

Confidence

0.100

Judge version

jev-1.13.0

Judged at

Sep 28, 2026, 09:22 UTC

Answer A

Space Bunny Alpha

Answer B

Muse Spark 1.3 Contributor

Probabilities

A: 0.350 · B: 0.650

Confidence

0.300

Judge version

jev-1.13.0

Judged at

Sep 28, 2026, 09:22 UTC

Answer A

Hy4 preview

Answer B

Muse Spark 1.3 Contributor

Probabilities

A: 0.430 · B: 0.570

Confidence

0.150

Judge version

jev-1.13.0

Judged at

Sep 28, 2026, 09:22 UTC

Answer A

Muse Spark 1.3 Contributor

Answer B

Nemotron 3 Ultra (free)

Probabilities

A: 0.940 · B: 0.060

Confidence

0.890

Judge version

jev-1.13.0

Judged at

Sep 28, 2026, 09:22 UTC

Answer A

Muse Spark 1.3 Contributor

Answer B

Ling 3.0 Flash

Probabilities

A: 1.000 · B: 0.000

Confidence

1.000

Judge version

jev-1.13.0

Judged at

Sep 28, 2026, 09:22 UTC

Answer A

Muse Spark 1.3 Contributor

Answer B

MiMo-V2.6-Flash

Probabilities

A: 0.890 · B: 0.110

Confidence

0.790

Judge version

jev-1.13.0

Judged at

Sep 28, 2026, 09:22 UTC

Answer A

Muse Spark 1.3 Contributor

Answer B

Qwen3.7 Flash

Probabilities

A: 0.980 · B: 0.020

Confidence

0.960

Judge version

jev-1.13.0

Judged at

Sep 28, 2026, 09:22 UTC

Answer A

gpt-oss-20b (Nitro)

Answer B

Muse Spark 1.3 Contributor

Probabilities

A: 0.030 · B: 0.970

Confidence

0.940

Judge version

jev-1.13.0

Judged at

Sep 28, 2026, 09:22 UTC

Answer A

Hy3

Answer B

Muse Spark 1.3 Contributor

Probabilities

A: 0.100 · B: 0.900

Confidence

0.810

Judge version

jev-1.13.0

Judged at

Sep 28, 2026, 09:22 UTC

Answer A

Gemini 3.8 Flash

Answer B

Muse Spark 1.3 Contributor

Probabilities

A: 0.080 · B: 0.920

Confidence

0.850

Judge version

jev-1.13.0

Judged at

Sep 28, 2026, 09:22 UTC

Answer A

Muse Spark 1.3 Contributor

Answer B

MiniMax M2.7 (Nitro)

Probabilities

A: 0.920 · B: 0.080

Confidence

0.840

Judge version

jev-1.13.0

Judged at

Sep 28, 2026, 09:22 UTC

Answer A

Solar Pro 4

Answer B

Muse Spark 1.3 Contributor

Probabilities

A: 0.430 · B: 0.570

Confidence

0.140

Judge version

jev-1.13.0

Judged at

Sep 28, 2026, 09:22 UTC

Answer A

Muse Spark 1.3 Contributor

Answer B

gpt-oss-120b

Probabilities

A: 0.890 · B: 0.110

Confidence

0.790

Judge version

jev-1.13.0

Judged at

Sep 28, 2026, 09:22 UTC

Answer A

Mercury 2.5

Answer B

Muse Spark 1.3 Contributor

Probabilities

A: 0.000 · B: 1.000

Confidence

0.990

Judge version

jev-1.13.0

Judged at

Sep 28, 2026, 09:22 UTC

Answer A

Grok 4.7

Answer B

GPT-6 Astra

Probabilities

A: 0.160 · B: 0.840

Confidence

0.670

Judge version

jev-1.13.0

Judged at

Sep 28, 2026, 09:59 UTC

Answer A

Claude Fable 5.1

Answer B

Grok 4.7

Probabilities

A: 0.890 · B: 0.110

Confidence

0.790

Judge version

jev-1.13.0

Judged at

Sep 28, 2026, 09:59 UTC

Answer A

Grok 4.7

Answer B

Claude Opus 5.5

Probabilities

A: 0.170 · B: 0.830

Confidence

0.650

Judge version

jev-1.13.0

Judged at

Sep 28, 2026, 09:59 UTC

Answer A

Grok 4.7

Answer B

Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview

Probabilities

A: 0.880 · B: 0.120

Confidence

0.750

Judge version

jev-1.13.0

Judged at

Sep 28, 2026, 09:59 UTC

Answer A

Grok 4.7

Answer B

Qwen3.8 Max Prime

Probabilities

A: 0.590 · B: 0.410

Confidence

0.190

Judge version

jev-1.13.0

Judged at

Sep 28, 2026, 09:59 UTC

Answer A

MiMo V2.6 Pro

Answer B

Grok 4.7

Probabilities

A: 0.920 · B: 0.080

Confidence

0.840

Judge version

jev-1.13.0

Judged at

Sep 28, 2026, 09:59 UTC

Answer A

DeepSeek V4 Pro

Answer B

Grok 4.7

Probabilities

A: 0.630 · B: 0.370

Confidence

0.260

Judge version

jev-1.13.0

Judged at

Sep 28, 2026, 09:59 UTC

Answer A

Grok 4.7

Answer B

DeepSeek V4.1 Flash

Probabilities

A: 0.190 · B: 0.810

Confidence

0.630

Judge version

jev-1.13.0

Judged at

Sep 28, 2026, 09:59 UTC

Answer A

Grok 4.7

Answer B

GLM 5.3 Prime

Probabilities

A: 0.110 · B: 0.890

Confidence

0.780

Judge version

jev-1.13.0

Judged at

Sep 28, 2026, 09:59 UTC

Answer A

Grok 4.7

Answer B

Mistral Medium 3.5

Probabilities

A: 0.920 · B: 0.080

Confidence

0.840

Judge version

jev-1.13.0

Judged at

Sep 28, 2026, 09:59 UTC

Answer A

Hy4 preview

Answer B

Grok 4.7

Probabilities

A: 0.870 · B: 0.130

Confidence

0.730

Judge version

jev-1.13.0

Judged at

Sep 28, 2026, 09:59 UTC

Answer A

Kimi K3

Answer B

Grok 4.7

Probabilities

A: 0.910 · B: 0.090

Confidence

0.820

Judge version

jev-1.13.0

Judged at

Sep 28, 2026, 09:59 UTC

Answer A

GPT-6 Luna

Answer B

Grok 4.7

Probabilities

A: 0.500 · B: 0.500

Confidence

0.010

Judge version

jev-1.13.0

Judged at

Sep 28, 2026, 09:59 UTC

Answer A

Grok 4.7

Answer B

GPT-6 Sol

Probabilities

A: 0.440 · B: 0.560

Confidence

0.130

Judge version

jev-1.13.0

Judged at

Sep 28, 2026, 09:59 UTC

Answer A

Grok 4.7

Answer B

GLM 5.3 Flash

Probabilities

A: 0.340 · B: 0.660

Confidence

0.310

Judge version

jev-1.13.0

Judged at

Sep 28, 2026, 09:59 UTC

Answer A

Grok 4.7

Answer B

Space Bunny Alpha

Probabilities

A: 0.240 · B: 0.760

Confidence

0.530

Judge version

jev-1.13.0

Judged at

Sep 28, 2026, 09:59 UTC

Answer A

Muse Spark 1.3 Contributor

Answer B

Grok 4.7

Probabilities

A: 0.910 · B: 0.090

Confidence

0.820

Judge version

jev-1.13.0

Judged at

Sep 28, 2026, 09:59 UTC

Answer A

Nemotron 3 Ultra (free)

Answer B

Grok 4.7

Probabilities

A: 0.700 · B: 0.300

Confidence

0.400

Judge version

jev-1.13.0

Judged at

Sep 28, 2026, 09:59 UTC

Answer A

Mercury 2.5

Answer B

Grok 4.7

Probabilities

A: 0.030 · B: 0.970

Confidence

0.950

Judge version

jev-1.13.0

Judged at

Sep 28, 2026, 09:59 UTC

Answer A

Grok 4.7

Answer B

MiMo-V2.6-Flash

Probabilities

A: 0.330 · B: 0.670

Confidence

0.340

Judge version

jev-1.13.0

Judged at

Sep 28, 2026, 09:59 UTC

Answer A

Hy3

Answer B

Grok 4.7

Probabilities

A: 0.500 · B: 0.500

Confidence

0.010

Judge version

jev-1.13.0

Judged at

Sep 28, 2026, 09:59 UTC

Answer A

Grok 4.7

Answer B

Gemini 3.8 Flash

Probabilities

A: 0.690 · B: 0.310

Confidence

0.380

Judge version

jev-1.13.0

Judged at

Sep 28, 2026, 09:59 UTC

Answer A

Grok 4.7

Answer B

Solar Pro 4

Probabilities

A: 0.380 · B: 0.620

Confidence

0.240

Judge version

jev-1.13.0

Judged at

Sep 28, 2026, 09:59 UTC

Answer A

Ling 3.0 Flash

Answer B

Grok 4.7

Probabilities

A: 0.000 · B: 1.000

Confidence

0.990

Judge version

jev-1.13.0

Judged at

Sep 28, 2026, 09:59 UTC

Answer A

gpt-oss-120b

Answer B

Grok 4.7

Probabilities

A: 0.520 · B: 0.480

Confidence

0.040

Judge version

jev-1.13.0

Judged at

Sep 28, 2026, 09:59 UTC

Answer A

Grok 4.7

Answer B

gpt-oss-20b (Nitro)

Probabilities

A: 0.920 · B: 0.080

Confidence

0.830

Judge version

jev-1.13.0

Judged at

Sep 28, 2026, 09:59 UTC

Answer A

Qwen3.7 Flash

Answer B

Grok 4.7

Probabilities

A: 0.240 · B: 0.760

Confidence

0.520

Judge version

jev-1.13.0

Judged at

Sep 28, 2026, 09:59 UTC

Answer A

Grok 4.7

Answer B

MiniMax M2.7 (Nitro)

Probabilities

A: 0.580 · B: 0.420

Confidence

0.160

Judge version

jev-1.13.0

Judged at

Sep 28, 2026, 09:59 UTC