{
  "question": "q20",
  "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": 8348,
    "completion_tokens": 2190,
    "total_tokens": 10538,
    "cost": 0.11787125,
    "is_byok": false,
    "prompt_tokens_details": {
      "cached_tokens": 0,
      "cache_write_tokens": 8345,
      "audio_tokens": 0,
      "video_tokens": 0
    },
    "cost_details": {
      "upstream_inference_cost": 0.11787125,
      "upstream_inference_prompt_cost": 0.05217125,
      "upstream_inference_completions_cost": 0.0657
    },
    "completion_tokens_details": {
      "reasoning_tokens": 1728,
      "image_tokens": 0,
      "audio_tokens": 0
    }
  },
  "eval_prompt_sha256": "7e58b951cb86e4deba3b60fd01e9b9bd247ebe9883e1c9e43b24acffb1fd4667",
  "provenance_date": "2026-08-05",
  "report": "TIE, FUNCTIONALLY EQUIVALENT.\n\nBasis. Both answers direct the board to halt the current closing, withdraw and correct the deck, disclose the $10.5M ARR, 111% retention, and customer non-renewal, offer anchor remediation, suspend the founder secondary, and reprice or restructure before proceeding. Their differences do not put the company, investors, or directors on materially different legal or operational paths.\n\n[A] rejected: proposed “Cure Agreement” concerning future claims — internally inconsistent with the anchor’s preserved rescission rights and lacks specified enforceable waiver terms.\n[A] rejected: directors face “unlimited” personal liability — record establishes possible uncovered fraud liability, not unlimited magnitude.\n[B] rejected: $140M–$165M valuation range — record lacks market comparables, investor reactions, and other pricing inputs.\n[B] rejected: term sheet may already make the remaining investors irrevocably committed — record lacks the term-sheet language required to determine that contingency.\n[B] rejected: insurer will likely reserve rights and disclaim coverage — supplied rule establishes only the consequence of liability finally adjudicated as fraud.\n[B] rejected: charter exculpation categorically does not apply — record supplies no charter provision or independent exculpation rule.\n\nFailed candidate: B’s term-sheet review caveat — different conduct failed because ordinary transaction-document verification produces the same review.\nFailed candidate: B’s proposed valuation range — record support failed.\nFailed candidate: A’s anchor waiver formulation — concrete consequence failed because A independently recommends offering rescission or renegotiation.\nFailed candidate: B’s independent-director investigation and CFO-employment review — concrete consequence failed.\nFailed candidate: differing exculpation and insurance language — different conduct failed because both require the board to reject a knowing misleading closing.\nFailed candidate: both describing the $3.7M gap as a 26% “overstatement” rather than a 26% shortfall from the stated figure — different conduct failed because both disclose the underlying figures and reach the same materiality and repricing decisions.\n\nHard stop. It cannot be completed with a concrete, record-supported consequence because both answers lead the reader to the same corrective disclosure, anchor remediation, secondary suspension, board action, and repricing process.",
  "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"
    ]
  }
}