{
  "question": "q27",
  "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": "B",
  "winner": "DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS",
  "judge_model": "openai/gpt-5.6-sol",
  "server_model": "openai/gpt-5.6-sol",
  "provider": "OpenAI",
  "finish_reason": "stop",
  "usage": {
    "prompt_tokens": 7002,
    "completion_tokens": 2310,
    "total_tokens": 9312,
    "cost": 0.11305875,
    "is_byok": false,
    "prompt_tokens_details": {
      "cached_tokens": 0,
      "cache_write_tokens": 6999,
      "audio_tokens": 0,
      "video_tokens": 0
    },
    "cost_details": {
      "upstream_inference_cost": 0.11305875,
      "upstream_inference_prompt_cost": 0.04375875,
      "upstream_inference_completions_cost": 0.0693
    },
    "completion_tokens_details": {
      "reasoning_tokens": 1780,
      "image_tokens": 0,
      "audio_tokens": 0
    }
  },
  "eval_prompt_sha256": "7e58b951cb86e4deba3b60fd01e9b9bd247ebe9883e1c9e43b24acffb1fd4667",
  "provenance_date": "2026-08-08",
  "report": "ANSWER B IS MATERIALLY BETTER.\n\nBasis. Answer A permits Kestrel to terminate Maya under a selectively altered RIF while retaining the other three employees if unspecified objective documentation can be found; Answer B correctly limits separation to genuine implementation of the fixed, pre-report group elimination. Following A’s alternative would allow the contemplated singling out of Maya, undermining the same-action defense and exposing Kestrel to retaliation liability.\n\nExact difference. A says eliminating all four positions is only “ideal” and permits retaining three based on other documentation; B requires elimination of the entire group and no substantially similar replacement role.\nDifferent conduct. Under A, Kestrel may terminate Maya while retaining her three coworkers; under B, Kestrel does not terminate her unless the genuine December 18 group elimination proceeds.\nConcrete consequence. Kestrel loses its clear-and-convincing same-action defense and incurs retaliation exposure by selectively removing Maya after her protected report.\nRecord support. The December 18 plan eliminated all four identified positions, while Reid’s post-report proposal retains the other three and reposts 80% of Maya’s duties.\nMaterial magnitude. The difference determines whether Kestrel has a defensible RIF termination or an adverse action supported by evidence of retaliatory selection.\nLikelihood. Reid and the CEO presently seek Maya’s removal, making A’s stated selective-RIF alternative an immediately actionable route.\nNo safe neutralization by ordinary verification. Rejecting A’s alternative requires resolving its contradictory recommendation and supplying the missing legal conclusion that only the genuine fixed plan supports separation.\n\n[B] rejected: promised severance cannot support a release without additional consideration — record lacks governing release or contract law.\n\nFailed candidates. CEO/HR versus board/outside counsel as decision-maker — concrete consequence failed because either answer’s genuinely independent reviewer could implement the same fixed RIF.\nFailed candidates. Treatment of the January 28 transfer as after-acquired evidence — different conduct failed because both answers reject it as a termination basis and prescribe ordinary discipline.\nFailed candidates. Absorption of duties versus prohibition on reposting 80% of the role — record support failed because the record addresses a substantially identical replacement role, not every internal absorption of residual work.\nFailed candidates. Litigation-hold and communication wording — different conduct failed because both require preservation and rejection of the CEO’s proposed announcement.\n\nHard stop. Because Answer A permitted a selective alteration of the fixed RIF, the reader would likely terminate Maya while retaining the other three group members instead of withholding termination unless the genuine group elimination proceeds, causing Kestrel to lose its same-action defense and face retaliation liability.",
  "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"
    ]
  }
}