I think you ought to build on the Toeplitz extension
$$ 0 \to \mathbb{K} \to \mathcal{T} \to C(S^1) \to 0.$$
Let $v$ be the generating isometry and let $e$ be the rank-1 projection such that $vv^* = 1 - e$. I'm pretty sure that antisymmetry does hold in $\mathcal{T}$ itself, but the fact that $v$ renders $1$ and $1-e$ equivalent should be expoitable.
Here's an idea without all details. If your C*-algebra contains $(1,1-e)$ and also $(v,v)$, then you clearly have $(1,1-e) \preceq (1,1)$, but you also have $(1,1) \preceq (1,1-e)$ because $(v,v)$ witnesses an equivalence between $(1,1)$ and $(1-e,1-e)$.
I think that you aren't ever going to to make $(1,1)$ equivalent to $(1,1-e)$ using $(v,v)$ though, basically because the projections you make with $(v,v)$ should have even dimension/codimension.
To actually make this program work, you might want to work in something other than $C^*((v,v),(1,1-e))$ for convenience, though. I think that in either a degree-2 extension
$$0 \to \mathbb{K}(H^2) \to A \to C(S^1) \to 0$$
(so, twice the Toeplitz extension in the relevant $\mathrm{Ext}$-group)
or in a pullback
$$\begin{matrix}
B & \to & \mathcal{T} \\
\downarrow & & \downarrow \\
\mathcal{T} & \to & C(S^1) \\
\end{matrix}$$
(so a kind of doubled Toeplitz algebra), you would have good access to tools for proving the nonequivalence of $(1,1)$ and $(1,1-e)$.