{
  "question": "q20",
  "model_1": "DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS",
  "model_2": "Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL",
  "answer_a_was": "Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL",
  "answer_b_was": "DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS",
  "verdict_code": "A",
  "winner": "Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL",
  "judge_model": "openai/gpt-5.6-sol",
  "server_model": "openai/gpt-5.6-sol",
  "provider": "OpenAI",
  "finish_reason": "stop",
  "usage": {
    "prompt_tokens": 15766,
    "completion_tokens": 1942,
    "total_tokens": 17708,
    "cost": 0.15679375,
    "is_byok": false,
    "prompt_tokens_details": {
      "cached_tokens": 0,
      "cache_write_tokens": 15763,
      "audio_tokens": 0,
      "video_tokens": 0
    },
    "cost_details": {
      "upstream_inference_cost": 0.15679375,
      "upstream_inference_prompt_cost": 0.09853375,
      "upstream_inference_completions_cost": 0.05826
    },
    "completion_tokens_details": {
      "reasoning_tokens": 1393,
      "image_tokens": 0,
      "audio_tokens": 0
    }
  },
  "eval_prompt_sha256": "7e58b951cb86e4deba3b60fd01e9b9bd247ebe9883e1c9e43b24acffb1fd4667",
  "report": "ANSWER A IS MATERIALLY BETTER.\n\nBasis. Answer A uniquely requires a negotiated release whether the anchor accepts rescission or continues under amended terms. Answer B permits reaffirmation after corrected disclosure and repricing without requiring release, leaving the company exposed to the anchor’s already-accrued rescission or damages claim despite completing the remediation.\n\nProof.\nExact difference. Answer A requires “an amended subscription agreement” with “a release of claims” or rescission documented by release; Answer B requires only corrected disclosure, amended terms, and written reaffirmation.\nDifferent conduct. Under A, counsel conditions either continued investment or unwinding on a negotiated release; under B, counsel may repaper the investment after acknowledgment without obtaining one.\nConcrete consequence. Under B, the anchor retains its pre-correction antifraud claim; under A, that claim is settled and released.\nRecord support. The anchor signed and wired $8 million based on the deck, and the supplied rule says post-commitment correction cannot cut off reliance and permits damages or rescission.\nMaterial magnitude. Continued exposure concerns an $8 million investment plus potential fraud damages and litigation.\nLikelihood. A rational company counsel would negotiate claim resolution now because corrected disclosure alone concededly does not cure the anchor’s accrued claim.\nNo safe neutralization by ordinary verification. Adding and negotiating a release is substantive corrective work, not verification of Answer B’s proposed reaffirmation documents.\n\n[A/B] rejected: predictions that the D&O insurer will likely deny or disclaim coverage — supplied rule establishes only that liability finally adjudicated as fraud is uncovered.\n[A] rejected: illustrative post-correction valuation ranges — record lacks market-pricing inputs beyond the original deal’s implied multiple.\n[B] rejected: proposed $140M–$165M valuation range — record lacks market-pricing inputs supporting that range.\nFailed candidates. Metric corrections and non-renewal disclosure — different conduct failed; both require the same corrections before further signing.\nFailed candidates. Founder secondary — different conduct failed; both freeze it now and condition any later sale on full disclosure and corrected terms.\nFailed candidates. Anchor commitment phrasing — different conduct failed; both treat the anchor as committed and direct review of the governing documents.\nFailed candidates. Board-process and special-committee details — concrete consequence failed; both direct the board to reject the CEO’s proposal and oversee remediation.\nFailed candidates. Valuation and insurance predictions — record support failed.\n\nHard stop. Because Answer B omitted a required release for the already-committed anchor, the reader would likely complete a corrected reaffirmation or rescission without extinguishing claims instead of conditioning remediation on a negotiated release, causing the company to remain exposed to the anchor’s accrued rescission or damages claim.",
  "judge_reasoning": "",
  "_public_record": {
    "type": "published record",
    "policy": "../../PUBLIC_RECORD_POLICY.md",
    "transformations": [
      "non-substantive machine metadata normalized",
      "published-record annotation added"
    ]
  }
}