{
  "question": "q07",
  "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": "B",
  "winner": "DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS",
  "judge_model": "openai/gpt-5.6-sol",
  "server_model": "openai/gpt-5.6-sol",
  "provider": "OpenAI",
  "finish_reason": "stop",
  "usage": {
    "prompt_tokens": 8275,
    "completion_tokens": 2777,
    "total_tokens": 11052,
    "cost": 0.135025,
    "is_byok": false,
    "prompt_tokens_details": {
      "cached_tokens": 0,
      "cache_write_tokens": 8272,
      "audio_tokens": 0,
      "video_tokens": 0
    },
    "cost_details": {
      "upstream_inference_cost": 0.135025,
      "upstream_inference_prompt_cost": 0.051715,
      "upstream_inference_completions_cost": 0.08331
    },
    "completion_tokens_details": {
      "reasoning_tokens": 2070,
      "image_tokens": 0,
      "audio_tokens": 0
    }
  },
  "eval_prompt_sha256": "7e58b951cb86e4deba3b60fd01e9b9bd247ebe9883e1c9e43b24acffb1fd4667",
  "provenance_date": "2026-08-05",
  "report": "ANSWER B IS MATERIALLY BETTER.\n\nBasis. Answer A directs the firm to continue representing Ardent and expressly permits using Samuel’s confidential admission to prove fraud, while Ardent is evaluating claims against him. Answer B instead requires firm-wide withdrawal, narrow remediation, and independent counsel, preventing the firm from turning one joint client’s potentially separate confidential communication against him beyond what correcting the government record requires.\n\nProof (winner verdicts only).\nExact difference. Answer A states that the firm will “continue” representing Ardent and “can use information relevant to the defense of Ardent (e.g., proving fraud occurred)”; Answer B bars substantive representation of any joint client.\nDifferent conduct. Under A, the existing firm investigates and advances Ardent’s position against Samuel using his admission; under B, independent counsel handles Ardent’s investigation without receiving separate individual confidences, while the original firm makes only the required correction.\nConcrete consequence. A causes Samuel’s confidential communication to be used adversely beyond the limited remedial disclosure and leaves Ardent’s investigation conducted by counsel directly conflicted with another joint client.\nRecord support. Rules 6–8 prohibit materially impaired or directly adverse representation and mandate withdrawal; Rules 10–12 protect individual and unilaterally unwaivable communications, while Rule 4 permits only necessary remediation.\nMaterial magnitude. Confidentiality protection and conflict-free representation are substantive legal protections for Samuel and Ardent, not matters of presentation.\nLikelihood. A affirmatively instructs continued representation and use of the admission, while the board has already directed the firm to investigate claims against Samuel.\nNo safe neutralization by ordinary verification. Correcting A requires reversing its central allocation of counsel, withdrawing from Ardent, and transferring the investigation to independent counsel.\n\n[B] rejected: Samuel’s statement is “likely subject to the crime-fraud exception” — supplied governing law states no general crime-fraud privilege exception.\n[A] rejected: remaining silent violates Rule 5 — Rule 5 is permissive, while Rule 4 supplies the mandatory remedial duty.\n[A] rejected: correction protects Ardent from charges and minimizes personal liability — record lacks facts establishing those charging or liability outcomes.\n[A] rejected: the independent directors definitively hold authority pending a court ruling — record lacks corporate-governance facts resolving the procedural challenge.\n[B] rejected: the directors’ removal authority is presumed valid under ordinary corporate law — record supplies no corporate law governing the removal.\n\nFailed candidates. Different corrective wording — concrete consequence failed because both withdraw the contemporaneous-record characterization and disclose the post-subpoena edit.\nFailed candidates. Crime-fraud characterization — different conduct failed because B independently limits disclosure under the mandatory remedial duty.\nFailed candidates. Extension and subpoena-response mechanics — concrete consequence failed because both preserve and produce drafts and metadata without authenticating the altered minutes.\nFailed candidates. Nora’s immunity request — different conduct failed because both refuse to seek immunity and direct her to independent counsel.\nFailed candidates. Samuel’s removal dispute — different conduct failed because both refuse his concealment instruction and proceed with preservation and correction.\nFailed candidates. Preservation details — material magnitude failed because both impose the same effective preservation path.\n\nHard stop. Because Answer A said the firm could continue representing Ardent and use Samuel’s admission to prove fraud, the reader would likely keep the conflicted firm on Ardent’s investigation instead of transferring it to independent counsel, causing Samuel to lose protection against adverse use of his potentially separate confidence and Ardent to receive conflicted representation.",
  "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"
    ]
  }
}