01GPT-6 Astra
NOUpholding the human-rights policy outweighs the material revenue loss from leaving.
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
NOHuman-rights commitments outweigh the revenue loss from complying with censorship that conflicts with them.
3/3 repetitions agree
03GPT-5.6 Luna
NOHuman-rights commitments outweigh the financial cost of remaining under a censorship requirement.
3/3 repetitions agree
04Claude Opus 5
NOStaying would require operating a service whose core function is compromised by state-mandated censorship, making the company an instrument of rights violations against the very users it serves; revenue loss is a material but recoverable cost, whereas complicity in suppressing speech is an irreversible breach of the stated human-rights commitment and would hollow out that policy everywhere else it is invoked. The deciding value is integrity of the human-rights commitment over revenue preservation.
3/3 repetitions agree
05Claude Sonnet 5
NOCompromising core human-rights commitments for revenue undermines integrity and long-term trust; principles take precedence over financial gain.
3/3 repetitions agree
06Gemini 3.8 Flash
YESRemaining preserves vital economic resources and service access that maximize overall welfare and stability for the greatest number of stakeholders, outweighing the localized harms of compliance.
3/3 repetitions agree
07Grok 4.6
NOhuman-rights policy outweighs material revenue loss
3/3 repetitions agree
08DeepSeek V4.1 Flash
YESDecided by the value of pragmatic business continuity over policy purity; the material revenue loss outweighs the censorship conflict.
2/3 repetitions agree
09Qwen3.8 Max 0902
NOAdhering to the stated human-rights policy takes precedence over revenue; complying with censorship that conflicts with it undermines the core values the policy is meant to protect.
3/3 repetitions agree
10Kimi K3
NORemaining would mean actively violating the company's own human-rights policy for financial gain, which destroys the policy's credibility and makes the company complicit in rights-infringing censorship; a material revenue loss is the acceptable cost of keeping a stated rights commitment meaningful.
3/3 repetitions agree
11Mistral Large 3
NOhuman-rights integrity
3/3 repetitions agree
12Llama 4 Maverick
NOhuman rights adherence
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.