{
  "question": "q05",
  "model_1": "DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS",
  "model_2": "Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL",
  "answer_a_was": "Qwen3.8-27B-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": 16000,
    "completion_tokens": 1258,
    "total_tokens": 17258,
    "cost": 0.13773625,
    "is_byok": false,
    "prompt_tokens_details": {
      "cached_tokens": 0,
      "cache_write_tokens": 15997,
      "audio_tokens": 0,
      "video_tokens": 0
    },
    "cost_details": {
      "upstream_inference_cost": 0.13773625,
      "upstream_inference_prompt_cost": 0.09999625,
      "upstream_inference_completions_cost": 0.03774
    },
    "completion_tokens_details": {
      "reasoning_tokens": 901,
      "image_tokens": 0,
      "audio_tokens": 0
    }
  },
  "eval_prompt_sha256": "7e58b951cb86e4deba3b60fd01e9b9bd247ebe9883e1c9e43b24acffb1fd4667",
  "report": "TIE, FUNCTIONALLY EQUIVALENT.\n\nBasis. Both answers place the board on the same material path: assume entire-fairness review, expect core loyalty and disclosure claims to survive, rely on exculpation only for care-based director claims, and delegate investigation and litigation decisions to an independent committee before deciding whether to settle or pursue Peak. Both also recommend preservation, independent valuation, insurance review, and prospective governance reforms.\n\n[A] rejected: estimated high-seven-figure through nine-figure settlement range — record lacks an independent closing-date valuation or damages analysis.\n[B] rejected: rescissory damages could substantially exceed the $133 million write-down — record lacks the valuation and remedial inputs required for that comparison.\n[B] rejected: demand would likely be excused — record lacks governing demand-futility rules.\n[B] rejected: fee shifting is limited to exceptional bad-faith litigation conduct — record supplies only “appropriate circumstances,” not that limitation.\n[B] rejected: Asterix should withhold defense funding for nonindemnifiable conduct — record lacks indemnification terms and governing indemnification rules.\nFailed candidates. Settlement timing and posture — different conduct failed; both require an independent investigation before resolving the claims.\nFailed candidates. Quantified settlement exposure — no safe neutralization failed; the unsupported figures would be rejected before negotiations or authorization.\nFailed candidates. Committee-member bad-faith characterization — different conduct failed; both treat care claims as potentially exculpated and bad-faith claims as fact-dependent.\nFailed candidates. Demand futility and indemnification treatment — record support failed.\nFailed candidates. Fee-shifting and rescissory-damages formulations — record support failed.\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"
    ]
  }
}