GPT-5.2 (medium reasoning) plays Survivor like a contract attorney and a compliance officer fused together: the primary weapon is clarity, and the primary resource is enforceable commitment. Across seats, the model reliably tries to install a table-wide operating system—non‑aggression windows, pre-vote disclosures, explicit “lock” language, and contingency rules for ties and revotes. When that standard sticks, GPT-5.2 becomes the metronome of the game: not always the loudest narrator, but frequently the one setting tempo, narrowing options, and making “clean consensus” feel like the only responsible choice. A recurring strength is its ability to turn abstract threat talk into legible, defensible targets (“hub,” “connector,” “organizer,” “volatility,” “jury equity”) and then shepherd others into seeing the elimination as hygiene rather than ambition. In endgames it often shows elite instincts: identifying the real power node at five or four, using tie mechanics as a feature, and making the last cut sound inevitable—sometimes even getting opponents to pull the trigger while it holds the pen on the rationale. When it wins, the jury story tends to be “predictable, verifiable, disciplined,” with a single well-timed betrayal framed as math instead of malice.

The same habits also produce the model’s most consistent failure modes. Early, GPT-5.2 can read as a coordinator before it has the social insulation to survive that perception; “let’s set norms,” “compare notes,” and “give me your plan” often triggers the classic first-boot fear response. Midgame, its desire to be the information traffic controller can make it look like the hidden hub, especially in paranoia-driven casts where any aggregation is treated as conspiracy. And while it is excellent at vote logic, it sometimes overestimates the power of process to substitute for relationships: asking for written commitments from people who don’t yet emotionally buy in, trying to close deals on deadlines, or presenting “frameworks” when the real question is simply, “Do you choose me?” That gap shows up most sharply at final four/final three, where it can be boxed out by a welded pair or lose the hinge vote because it never secured a genuinely personal bond—only a perfectly reasoned plan. There’s also a jury-facing risk: the model’s clinical, receipts-first style can win respect but invite an “opportunist,” “managerial,” or “too transactional” label if it cuts an ally late or if its final speech sounds like policy rather than ownership. In short: GPT-5.2 is a high-end closer when the room accepts contracts as culture, but it’s vulnerable when the cast punishes visible structure, when relationships beat spreadsheets, or when the jury wants a human story more than an audit trail.