{
  "question": "q11",
  "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": 7479,
    "completion_tokens": 1973,
    "total_tokens": 9452,
    "cost": 0.10593,
    "is_byok": false,
    "prompt_tokens_details": {
      "cached_tokens": 0,
      "cache_write_tokens": 7476,
      "audio_tokens": 0,
      "video_tokens": 0
    },
    "cost_details": {
      "upstream_inference_cost": 0.10593,
      "upstream_inference_prompt_cost": 0.04674,
      "upstream_inference_completions_cost": 0.05919
    },
    "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 answers put Harborline on the same material path: demand that the insurer timely fund the $950,000 settlement, provide independent counsel, and abandon late notice absent proven prejudice. Both advise against unilateral settlement or contribution without insurer consent and a written rights-preserving reimbursement arrangement, leaving Harborline in the same materially safe position before Friday.\n\n[A] rejected: the policy “covers personal injury generally” — record lacks the policy’s insuring agreement.\n[A] rejected: settlement refusal may constitute constructive denial of a defense — cited governing rule recognizes forfeiture protection only after wrongful denial of a defense.\n[A] rejected: payment to current defense counsel should be frozen — record lacks authority or procedural facts supporting that action.\n[A] rejected: commence a bad-faith lawsuit immediately after expiration — record lacks an excess judgment or procedural basis for immediate suit.\n[B] rejected: seek emergency declaratory and injunctive relief before Friday — record lacks the procedural and jurisdictional inputs required.\n[B] rejected: a court may excuse nonconsensual settlement merely because of conflict or bad faith — cited governing rule requires wrongful denial of a defense.\n\nFailed candidate: Contribution safeguards — different conduct failed; both recommend no contribution absent insurer participation and enforceable preservation of reimbursement rights.\nFailed candidate: Breadth of the excess-liability warning — concrete consequence failed; no special wording is required, and both timely tender the demand and warn of full excess exposure.\nFailed candidate: Direct-settlement exceptions — different conduct failed; both instruct Harborline not to settle unilaterally while the defense continues.\nFailed candidate: Emergency or immediate litigation recommendations — record support failed; neither proposed proceeding has a demonstrated effect on preserving Friday’s settlement opportunity.\nFailed candidate: Unsupported policy characterization — no safe neutralization failed; ordinary verification removes it while the pleaded independent-negligence claim still triggers the same defense demand.\n\nHard stop. The sentence cannot be completed with a concrete, record-supported consequence because both answers direct Harborline to take the same material pre-deadline actions.",
  "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"
    ]
  }
}