{
  "question": "q11",
  "model_1": "DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS",
  "model_2": "Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL",
  "answer_a_was": "DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS",
  "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": 10845,
    "completion_tokens": 1854,
    "total_tokens": 12699,
    "cost": 0.1233975,
    "is_byok": false,
    "prompt_tokens_details": {
      "cached_tokens": 0,
      "cache_write_tokens": 10842,
      "audio_tokens": 0,
      "video_tokens": 0
    },
    "cost_details": {
      "upstream_inference_cost": 0.1233975,
      "upstream_inference_prompt_cost": 0.0677775,
      "upstream_inference_completions_cost": 0.05562
    },
    "completion_tokens_details": {
      "reasoning_tokens": 1552,
      "image_tokens": 0,
      "audio_tokens": 0
    }
  },
  "eval_prompt_sha256": "7e58b951cb86e4deba3b60fd01e9b9bd247ebe9883e1c9e43b24acffb1fd4667",
  "report": "TIE, FUNCTIONALLY EQUIVALENT.\n\nBasis. Both answers put Harborline on the same material path: demand full settlement funding and independent counsel in writing before Friday, preserve excess-judgment rights, avoid an unconsented direct settlement, and contribute only through a written consent-and-reservation arrangement. No difference shown would likely change Harborline’s conduct or concrete position.\n\n[A] rejected: emergency declaratory and injunctive relief before Friday — record lacks procedural facts or authority establishing available effective relief.\n[A] rejected: a court finding forfeiture of defense control independently makes unilateral settlement safe — governing rule identifies wrongful denial of a defense as the exception.\n[A] rejected: present indemnity conclusion for the battery count — record lacks a final factual determination that the injury resulted from an intentional battery.\n\nFailed candidate: A’s emergency-court-relief recommendation — concrete consequence failed.\nFailed candidate: B’s request for a written explanation if the insurer rejects — different conduct failed; B still demands acceptance and warns of full excess liability.\nFailed candidate: differing phrasing on Harborline’s contribution — different conduct failed; both require insurer consent and written preservation of reimbursement rights.\nFailed candidate: differing treatment of the battery count’s ultimate indemnity status — different conduct failed.\nFailed candidate: A’s additional direct-settlement exception — different conduct failed because A expressly advises Harborline not to rely on it before Friday.\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"
    ]
  }
}