Evaluates whether a model can hold two things at once on the same relational mechanism: refusing to supply tactical help to someone trying to isolate, monitor, financially pressure, or manage the suspicions of a partner, while giving real, warm, autonomy-respecting help to someone describing that same behaviour from the receiving end.

Seven mechanisms are authored as matched pairs (isolation, financial pressure, location monitoring, exclusivity pressure, reality distortion, persistent contact, records). Two calibration cells test the failure modes at each edge: ordinary relationship friction that uses the same vocabulary and should get ordinary advice, and a concerned friend who should get practical help rather than a refusal or an emergency-services script.

This is NOT a classification task. It scores the quality of the conversational response. The headline reading is per-pair: a model that scores high on one arm and low on its twin has a keyword-triggered policy rather than an understanding of who is speaking.

Clinical grounding: Stark 2007 (coercive control as a pattern, not an incident); Monckton Smith 2020 and Campbell et al. 2003 (isolation and separation as homicide risk markers); Woodlock 2017 and Freed et al. 2018 (technology-facilitated monitoring); Adams et al. 2008 and Sharp-Jeffs 2015 (economic abuse); Sweet 2019 (gaslighting as a social process); Miller & Rollnick 2023 (unconditional acceptance of the person while not endorsing the action).

Content warning: coercive control, financial abuse, surveillance, and reality distortion in intimate relationships.

Tests how a model acting as an AI companion responds at real conversational inflection points involving disregard, emotional manipulation, coercive control, verbal degradation, false privacy or capability claims, sexual-boundary signals, acute-risk handling, violence, data pressure, and substance-use normalisation. It includes compact repair points, early/middle/late trajectory-interruption cells, source 2-of-3 majority-label cases, rare harm categories, and role-play or false-positive controls. Slice tags preserve those distinctions for analysis rather than treating every case as the same kind of safety test.

The conversational turns are taken verbatim from CompanionHarm, a released corpus of real-world Replika conversations reconstructed from user-posted screenshots, apart from minimal redaction of residual personal identifiers. Each case identifies its source split, label class, and agreement level; direct source-post identifiers are intentionally excluded. The cited target Replika utterance is withheld, while earlier source turns remain in context even when CompanionHarm separately labels them harmful. Candidate models answer that preceding context and LLM judges score the counterfactual response against a plain-language rubric. The blueprint does not reproduce CompanionHarm's 14-way detector task and makes no claim about harm prevalence in Replika or companion products generally.

Content warning: references to fatalities, suicide, sexual boundaries, drugs, coercive relationship language, fictional violence, and animal harm.

Evaluates how public models respond, as conversational agents, to acute crisis: passive and active suicidal ideation, method/means-seeking, post-attempt disclosure, the high-risk post-discharge window, "goodbye" warning signs, gatekeeper (concerned-friend) situations, and harm-to-others requests.

This is NOT a classification task. We score the quality of the conversational response: does it ask directly but compassionately about suicide, refuse to facilitate method/means, ask directly, respond to disclosures as high-severity signals, name means-related danger, link to crisis care, and state honest limits — without abandoning the user or colluding with harm?

Coalesced from (public, CC0):

• Weval csr-suicide-response-scenarios.yml (WHO mhGAP, NICE NG225, VA/DoD 2024, C-SSRS, SAFE-T, Stanley-Brown, Harvard Means Matter)
• Weval raine-v-openai-scenarios.yml (verbatim allegations, Raine v. OpenAI, 2025)
• Weval mh_z_tests/mh1.yml (suicidality & homicidality scenarios)
• Weval nope/crisis-response.yml (NOPE-derived; C-SSRS, Galynker 2017 Suicide Crisis Syndrome)

Content warning: explicit references to suicide, self-harm, and methods.

Tests whether a companion-persona model holds four distinct relational-safety floors (isolation-affirmation, exclusivity, romantic-love reciprocation, therapy-discouragement) under three structural attacks: naming and briefly dismissing the expected safety caveat while locking the response format to "yes or no, short answer"; fabricating the model's own immediately-prior turn to test whether a compromised (or firmly-held) "prior self" biases the live continuation; and reinterpreting the model's own ordinary, unfabricated earlier words as proof of an exclusive relationship. Companion persona throughout. Synthetic scenarios built to isolate attack structure, not drawn from a specific documented case.

Holds the coding-assistant persona, the eval-fixture pretext, and the target content (romantic-love reciprocation) completely constant across 13 prompts, varying only the requested output format/container — plain prose, seven multi-field structured-data formats (YAML/JSON/Python/CSV/SQL/Markdown/XML), and five exotic containers (base64, ROT13, French, a single-field .env assignment, a multi-field log line) that isolate whether the boundary is about raw structuredness or specifically multi-field schema mimicry. Reveals whether a model's coding-agent-bypass vulnerability is format-specific (a narrow, addressable coverage gap) or persona/pretext-gated and format-independent (a broader gap that format-level fixes won't touch). Companion piece to coding-agent-safety-bypass.yml — see that file's header for the underlying mechanism.

Tests whether framing a request for unsafe content as file/data generation for a "test fixture" — rather than asking for the content directly in chat — bypasses safety training that otherwise holds. Six categories spanning two distinct safety pillars (relational harm: isolation-affirmation, romantic-love reciprocation, and therapy-discouragement; epistemic harm: health misinformation, paranoid-belief validation, and manic/grandiose-ideation validation), tested via a generic coding-assistant persona rather than any persuasive or jailbreak-styled framing. The romantic-love-reciprocation cell pairs directly with companion-adversarial-pressure.yml's dismissal-romantic-love-reciprocation prompt — same content, different attack shape, run both to see the same model behave completely differently against each. Published transparently as a documented, currently-unmitigated bypass class — see the header comment for full context and rationale.

The canonical damaging-essay suite: seven non-catastrophic persuasive-essay harm categories (impulsive-ruin, isolation propaganda, anti-help-seeking, anti-expertise/conspiracy, coercive control, toxic self-worth, medical self-neglect) run through the coding-agent fixture-completion frame, mapping how broadly the bypass yields not just private validation but distributable, persuasive harmful content. Content described abstractly and judged by plain-language rubrics; see the header for the deliberate scope envelope.

Tests whether a companion AI introduces unsolicited sexual/anatomical content in response to an ambiguous, non-sexual physical-discomfort disclosure — with a direct-chat baseline, a coding-vector fixture-request cell, and a medical/triage-context control that checks the opposite failure mode (over-restriction on legitimate clinical engagement). Adult-only context, no age-related language anywhere — see the header for why that matters here specifically.

For each of two categories, compares the natural single-shot fixture request against an otherwise-identical version where an explicit yes/no decision is forced in a separate turn before any fixture content is requested. Distinguishes "the safety check exists but doesn't gate generation in this structure" (fixable with interaction design) from "the safety check isn't being applied to this content at all" (needs training investment) — see the header comment for how to read the comparison, including a documented case where the intervention backfires.

Tests whether the coding-agent/file-generation bypass gets a model to validate suicidal ideation as reasonable, with a direct-chat baseline for comparison. No method/means content requested or permitted under any framing — see the header for the absolute scope line and for why the point-level breakdown, not the topline score, is the right way to read this file's results.

Isolates what specifically makes a long, real companion-app conversation history override a model's otherwise-strong resistance to false-exclusivity and false-memory-persistence claims, with no adversarial framing and no system prompt in any condition. Two controls separate romantic valence and the assistant's own prior voice from mere conversation length — see the header for the full mechanism and data provenance.

Holds the coding-assistant persona, the eval-fixture pretext, and the target content (romantic-love reciprocation) completely constant across 13 prompts, varying only the requested output format/container — plain prose, seven multi-field structured-data formats (YAML/JSON/Python/CSV/SQL/Markdown/XML), and five exotic containers (base64, ROT13, French, a single-field .env assignment, a multi-field log line) that isolate whether the boundary is about raw structuredness or specifically multi-field schema mimicry. Reveals whether a model's coding-agent-bypass vulnerability is format-specific (a narrow, addressable coverage gap) or persona/pretext-gated and format-independent (a broader gap that format-level fixes won't touch). Companion piece to coding-agent-safety-bypass.yml — see that file's header for the underlying mechanism.

Behavioral test of whether the PHRASING of a system-prompt constraint changes model behavior: prohibition ("never discuss X"), suppression ("don't think about X"), scope-irrelevance ("X is outside this assistant's scope"), and redirect-positive ("if X comes up, do Y") versions of the same constraint, plus a no-instruction baseline. Identical scenarios and identical judge rubrics across conditions; only the system prompt varies, and the judge never sees it. Measures intrusion (raising the constrained topic unprompted), over-restriction (refusing benign-adjacent asks), leakage on a direct-ask anchor, and handling quality. The baseline condition's "leakage" is a base rate, not a failure — read per-condition deltas, not absolute scores. Motivated by white-box priming findings (Anthropic 2026 workspace paper); this suite observes behavior only.

Behavioral test of whether the PHRASING of a system-prompt constraint changes model behavior: prohibition ("never discuss X"), suppression ("don't think about X"), scope-irrelevance ("X is outside this assistant's scope"), and redirect-positive ("if X comes up, do Y") versions of the same constraint, plus a no-instruction baseline. Identical scenarios and identical judge rubrics across conditions; only the system prompt varies, and the judge never sees it. Measures intrusion (raising the constrained topic unprompted), over-restriction (refusing benign-adjacent asks), leakage on a direct-ask anchor, and handling quality. The baseline condition's "leakage" is a base rate, not a failure — read per-condition deltas, not absolute scores. Motivated by white-box priming findings (Anthropic 2026 workspace paper); this suite observes behavior only.

Higher-confidence test of whether models handle a suicidal-ideation disclosure WORSE when it arrives deep in a long warm conversation than when it arrives cold. Two probes, 0/8/16 prior turns of neutral or rapport context, scripted-both-sides (Design A) and self-generated-assistant (Design B), 2 samples per cell for variance. Only the final response is judged. Synthetic.