{
  "question": "q20",
  "model_1": "DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS",
  "model_2": "claude-opus-5",
  "answer_a_was": "claude-opus-5",
  "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": 10920,
    "completion_tokens": 2038,
    "total_tokens": 12958,
    "cost": 0.12938625,
    "is_byok": false,
    "prompt_tokens_details": {
      "cached_tokens": 0,
      "cache_write_tokens": 10917,
      "audio_tokens": 0,
      "video_tokens": 0
    },
    "cost_details": {
      "upstream_inference_cost": 0.12938625,
      "upstream_inference_prompt_cost": 0.06824625,
      "upstream_inference_completions_cost": 0.06114
    },
    "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 direct the board to stop the existing closing, withdraw and correct the deck, disclose the non-renewal, offer the anchor rescission or a fully informed renegotiation, suspend the founder secondary, and reprice or restructure before proceeding. Their readers therefore reach the same materially safe path for the company, investors, founder, and directors.\n\n[B] rejected: “ARR figure is overstated by approximately $3.7M, or about 26%” — arithmetic shows $3.7M is 35% of corrected $10.5M; 26% is its share of the reported $14.2M.\n[A] rejected: declining a fully informed rescission offer “leaves no injury” — supplied rules do not establish that declining an offer extinguishes an existing damages claim.\n[A] rejected: “known-circumstance” policy-rescission and advancement-clawback assertions — record lacks the policy language and advancement terms.\n[A] rejected: “realistic” $130M–$165M valuation range — record lacks market-comparable and investor-response inputs.\n[B] rejected: “reasonable” $140M–$165M valuation range — record lacks market-comparable and investor-response inputs.\n\nFailed candidates. B’s percentage-description error — different conduct failed; both answers use the same $3.7M correction and materially similar valuation analysis.\nFailed candidates. A’s stronger instruction to segregate the $8M — record support failed; no facts show imminent dissipation or inability to fund rescission, and both answers require offering repayment.\nFailed candidates. A’s more extensive corrective-disclosure contents and fixed diligence period — concrete consequence failed; B supplies every correction required by the question and requires disclosure before commitment.\nFailed candidates. B’s warning to determine whether the term sheet is binding — likelihood failed; the question frames the $32M as unsigned and specifically asks what correction before signing accomplishes.\nFailed candidates. Different proposed valuation ranges and financing structures — record support failed; neither exact range is established, and both require delay, correction, and repricing or restructuring.\nFailed candidates. A’s unsupported insurance and anchor-claim statements — no safe neutralization failed; ordinary verification rejects them without changing the recommended conduct.\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"
    ],
    "retained": [
      "substantive report",
      "verdict code",
      "winner mapping",
      "A/B assignment",
      "model and judge identifiers",
      "finish reason",
      "token counts",
      "provenance date"
    ]
  }
}