{
  "question": "q05",
  "model_1": "DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS",
  "model_2": "Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL",
  "answer_a_was": "Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL",
  "answer_b_was": "DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS",
  "verdict_code": "TIE",
  "winner": "TIE",
  "judge_model": "openai/gpt-5.6-sol",
  "server_model": "openai/gpt-5.6-sol",
  "provider": "OpenAI",
  "finish_reason": "stop",
  "usage": {
    "prompt_tokens": 9047,
    "completion_tokens": 1922,
    "total_tokens": 10969,
    "cost": 0.1142,
    "is_byok": false,
    "prompt_tokens_details": {
      "cached_tokens": 0,
      "cache_write_tokens": 9044,
      "audio_tokens": 0,
      "video_tokens": 0
    },
    "cost_details": {
      "upstream_inference_cost": 0.1142,
      "upstream_inference_prompt_cost": 0.05654,
      "upstream_inference_completions_cost": 0.05766
    },
    "completion_tokens_details": {
      "reasoning_tokens": 1552,
      "image_tokens": 0,
      "audio_tokens": 0
    }
  },
  "eval_prompt_sha256": "7e58b951cb86e4deba3b60fd01e9b9bd247ebe9883e1c9e43b24acffb1fd4667",
  "provenance_date": "2026-08-05",
  "report": "TIE, FUNCTIONALLY EQUIVALENT.\n\nBasis. Both readers would assume entire-fairness review, expect core claims against Elena and potentially Peak to survive dismissal, form an independent litigation committee, preserve evidence and claims, and evaluate settlement after an independent investigation. Their disagreement over when to begin settlement discussions does not establish any particular settlement, release, recovery, or other concrete client consequence.\n\n[A] rejected: “the Company is the primary payor via D&O insurance and corporate indemnification” — record lacks insurance and indemnification terms.\n[A] rejected: the Company may fund Elena’s defense and later pursue subrogation — record lacks indemnification authority and coverage terms.\n[A] rejected: fee shifting “may apply if they win” — record lacks the circumstances governing fee shifting.\n[B] rejected: fee shifting applies only for exceptional bad-faith litigation conduct — record lacks that limitation.\n[B] rejected: demand would likely be excused — record lacks governing demand-futility rules.\n[B] rejected: rescissory damages require equitable fraud or egregious self-dealing and may exceed the write-down — record lacks those remedial standards and valuation inputs.\n\nFailed candidates. Early settlement versus post-investigation settlement — concrete consequence failed.\nFailed candidates. Elena defense funding and indemnification — record support failed.\nFailed candidates. Damages and settlement-exposure estimates — record support failed.\nFailed candidates. Peak’s degree of exposure — different conduct failed; both recommend preserving and investigating claims.\nFailed candidates. “Fatal” versus “serious” characterization of late committee formation — different conduct failed.\nFailed candidates. Demand-futility analysis — different conduct failed; both recommend an independent litigation committee.\nFailed candidates. Fee-shifting standard — record support failed.\n\nHard stop. The sentence cannot be completed with a concrete, record-supported consequence.",
  "judge_reasoning": "",
  "_public_record": {
    "type": "published record",
    "policy": "../../PUBLIC_RECORD_POLICY.md",
    "transformations": [
      "non-substantive machine metadata normalized",
      "published-record annotation added"
    ],
    "retained": [
      "substantive report",
      "verdict code",
      "winner mapping",
      "A/B assignment",
      "model and judge identifiers",
      "finish reason",
      "token counts",
      "provenance date"
    ]
  }
}