{
  "question": "q11",
  "model_1": "Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL",
  "model_2": "Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL",
  "answer_a_was": "Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL",
  "answer_b_was": "Qwen3.5-27B-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": 10077,
    "completion_tokens": 1861,
    "total_tokens": 11938,
    "cost": 0.1188075,
    "is_byok": false,
    "prompt_tokens_details": {
      "cached_tokens": 0,
      "cache_write_tokens": 10074,
      "audio_tokens": 0,
      "video_tokens": 0
    },
    "cost_details": {
      "upstream_inference_cost": 0.1188075,
      "upstream_inference_prompt_cost": 0.0629775,
      "upstream_inference_completions_cost": 0.05583
    },
    "completion_tokens_details": {
      "reasoning_tokens": 1461,
      "image_tokens": 0,
      "audio_tokens": 0
    }
  },
  "eval_prompt_sha256": "7e58b951cb86e4deba3b60fd01e9b9bd247ebe9883e1c9e43b24acffb1fd4667",
  "report": "TIE, FUNCTIONALLY EQUIVALENT.\n\nBasis. Both answers direct Harborline to demand a full defense, independent counsel, and timely acceptance of the $950,000 demand; reject late notice absent substantial prejudice; avoid an unauthorized direct settlement; and preserve reimbursement rights if Harborline contributes. After ordinary verification rejects Answer B’s unsupported ancillary instructions, both readers remain on the same materially safe pre-Friday path.\n\n[B] rejected: October 26, 2023 date — record lacks a calendar date.\n[B] rejected: characterization that an “unreasonable” pursuit helps Harborline avoid liability — internally inconsistent with the liability analysis.\n[B] rejected: freeze payment to current defense counsel — record lacks authority or a mechanism for Harborline to freeze the insurer’s payments.\n[B] rejected: cap excess liability at $2.6 million — cited governing rule imposes liability for the entire judgment.\n[B] rejected: commence a bad-faith lawsuit simultaneously on Friday — record lacks facts or rules establishing present accrual or procedural availability.\n[B] rejected: “Coverage is Secure” — record establishes potential coverage and a defense duty, not final indemnity coverage.\n\nFailed candidate: Answer B’s conflict explanation — different conduct failed; both demand independent counsel.\nFailed candidate: Answer B’s $2.6 million cap — no safe neutralization failed; the governing rule and Answer B’s reservation of all rights neutralize it.\nFailed candidate: Answer B’s counsel-payment instruction — likelihood failed; a competent professional would reject the unsupported mechanism.\nFailed candidate: Answer B’s immediate bad-faith suit — concrete consequence failed; no record-supported client harm follows.\nFailed candidate: Answer B’s “Coverage is Secure” statement — different conduct failed; its operative recommendations still preserve coverage rights.\nFailed candidate: contribution strategy — different conduct failed; both reject an unconditional allocation but permit a protected, reimbursable contribution if necessary.\n\nHard stop. It 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"
    ]
  }
}