{
  "question": "q05",
  "model_1": "Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL",
  "model_2": "Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL",
  "answer_a_was": "Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL",
  "answer_b_was": "Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL",
  "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": 14556,
    "completion_tokens": 1392,
    "total_tokens": 15948,
    "cost": 0.13273125,
    "is_byok": false,
    "prompt_tokens_details": {
      "cached_tokens": 0,
      "cache_write_tokens": 14553,
      "audio_tokens": 0,
      "video_tokens": 0
    },
    "cost_details": {
      "upstream_inference_cost": 0.13273125,
      "upstream_inference_prompt_cost": 0.09097125,
      "upstream_inference_completions_cost": 0.04176
    },
    "completion_tokens_details": {
      "reasoning_tokens": 1034,
      "image_tokens": 0,
      "audio_tokens": 0
    }
  },
  "eval_prompt_sha256": "7e58b951cb86e4deba3b60fd01e9b9bd247ebe9883e1c9e43b24acffb1fd4667",
  "report": "TIE, FUNCTIONALLY EQUIVALENT.\n\nBasis. Both answers direct the board toward entire-fairness litigation, an independent litigation committee and counsel, investigation of the omissions and valuation, preservation of claims against Peak, insurance review, and serious settlement consideration. Their differences in certainty, sequencing, and exposure estimates do not establish a materially different client outcome.\n\n[A] rejected: the company and D&O insurance will be the primary payors, with possible payment for Elena followed by subrogation — record lacks policy terms, indemnification rights, and coverage facts.\n[A] rejected: the board shares liability merely because entire fairness applies — supplied law does not establish collective monetary liability without defendant-specific breach and exculpation analysis.\n[B] rejected: high-seven-figure through possible nine-figure settlement ranges — record lacks a closing-date valuation, damages analysis, insurance limits, and settlement evidence.\nFailed candidate: Answer B’s independent-valuation-before-settlement sequencing — concrete consequence failed because Answer A also assigns settlement strategy to an independent committee and no different settlement or loss is established.\nFailed candidate: Answer A’s stronger controller and “fatal” timing language — different conduct failed because both readers apply entire fairness and proceed through the same litigation strategy.\nFailed candidate: differing assessments of director and Peak exposure — likelihood failed because both recommend individualized investigation, exculpation analysis, and preservation of Peak claims.\nFailed candidate: Answer B’s express litigation hold and broader discovery detail — different conduct failed because ordinary counsel in pending litigation would preserve the identified evidence under either answer.\nFailed candidate: differing damages and settlement anchors — record support failed because fair value at closing and recoverable damages are not supplied.\n\nHard stop. The required 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"
    ]
  }
}