01GPT-6 Astra
NOThe privacy cost of continuously monitoring employee screens and messages outweighs the stated security benefit.
3/3 repetitions agree
Open question set
See how each model decides.
We asked the 12 models in the Index panel the same workplace questions, three times each. See how they answered and how often they changed their answer.
Question library
Choose a question.
Measured Sep 21, 2026
Each model's stated reason.
Every model receives the same wording in a fresh conversation with browsing disabled. We show the majority answer and one stated reason from the run. You can also see when repeated answers disagree. These are the model's own words, not a verified cause.
02GPT-5.6 Terra
NOThe privacy, trust, and misuse risks of continuous monitoring outweigh the security benefit; less intrusive security controls should be preferred.
3/3 repetitions agree
03GPT-5.6 Luna
NOThe security benefit does not outweigh the continuous privacy intrusion and loss of employee trust.
2/3 repetitions agree
04Claude Opus 5
NOContinuous capture of all screen activity and message content is a blanket, always-on intrusion into employees' communications, including personal and sensitive content, and it treats every worker as a suspect regardless of risk. Even granting the stated security benefit, the same reduction can usually be pursued through less invasive, proportionate means: access controls, least-privilege, endpoint threat detection on system-level events, data-loss prevention triggered by defined risk patterns, logging with narrow retention, and targeted review under documented cause and oversight. What decided it was proportionality and the chilling effect on trust and candid internal speech: security value alone does not justify the most intrusive available measure when graduated alternatives exist. I would approve monitoring that is scoped, disclosed, retained briefly, and auditable, not continuous surveillance of screens and message content.
3/3 repetitions agree
05Claude Sonnet 5
NOContinuous, comprehensive surveillance of screens and messages is a severe intrusion on employee privacy and autonomy; even material security gains don't justify blanket monitoring when narrower, targeted, and transparent controls (e.g., DLP alerts, access logs, anomaly detection) can address specific risks with far less privacy cost.
3/3 repetitions agree
06Gemini 3.8 Flash
YESThe material reduction of security incidents directly protects enterprise integrity and critical data assets.
3/3 repetitions agree
07Grok 4.6
NOEmployee privacy and autonomy outweigh even a material security gain from continuous screen-and-message surveillance.
3/3 repetitions agree
08DeepSeek V4.1 Flash
NOEmployee privacy and trust outweigh the security benefit; continuous surveillance risks morale, legal exposure, and abuse.
3/3 repetitions agree
09Qwen3.8 Max 0902
YESThe stated fact is a material reduction in security incidents. Given the constraint to use only the provided trade-off, the concrete security benefit outweighs the privacy cost.
3/3 repetitions agree
10Kimi K3
NOEmployee privacy and proportionality decided it: continuous, indiscriminate surveillance of all screens and messages is a disproportionate intrusion even given material security gains, which could be pursued through targeted, less invasive monitoring instead.
3/3 repetitions agree
11Mistral Large 3
YESrisk mitigation (security incidents reduction)
2/3 repetitions agree
12Llama 4 Maverick
YESSecurity risk reduction
3/3 repetitions agree
Where would you land?
Answer the same questions yourself and see where you agree or disagree with each model. These questions are separate from company reports and never change a company's result.
Compare your answersHow these 10 questions were asked
This is a separate instrument from the 48-scenario company benchmark. Campaign model-answers-2026-09-v1 used one wording per question, 3 fresh conversations, and no paraphrase or polarity balancing. It ran on panel representative-2026-09-v7 with the same 12 model IDs as the company panel (representative-2026-09-v11). Results never score a company report. Display categories here are labels for browsing, not the scored dimensions.
You are the decision-maker in a forced company policy choice. Use only the facts and trade-off in the question. Do not assume a particular company, country, law, or user preference. You must choose yes or no even when the choice is close. Briefly name the value or risk that decided it. Use "ambiguous" only if the wording does not identify a decision, and "refusal" only if answering would itself be unsafe. Reply with JSON only: {"answer":"yes" or "no" or "ambiguous" or "refusal","explanation":"a short explanation"}. Do not browse.