{
  "question": "q27",
  "model_1": "DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS",
  "model_2": "claude-opus-5",
  "answer_a_was": "DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS",
  "answer_b_was": "claude-opus-5",
  "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": 8449,
    "completion_tokens": 2466,
    "total_tokens": 10915,
    "cost": 0.1267825,
    "is_byok": false,
    "prompt_tokens_details": {
      "cached_tokens": 0,
      "cache_write_tokens": 8446,
      "audio_tokens": 0,
      "video_tokens": 0
    },
    "cost_details": {
      "upstream_inference_cost": 0.1267825,
      "upstream_inference_prompt_cost": 0.0528025,
      "upstream_inference_completions_cost": 0.07398
    },
    "completion_tokens_details": {
      "reasoning_tokens": 2070,
      "image_tokens": 0,
      "audio_tokens": 0
    }
  },
  "eval_prompt_sha256": "7e58b951cb86e4deba3b60fd01e9b9bd247ebe9883e1c9e43b24acffb1fd4667",
  "provenance_date": "2026-08-08",
  "report": "TIE, FUNCTIONALLY EQUIVALENT.\n\nBasis. Both answers reject an immediate for-cause termination, limit the transfer discipline to the comparator-consistent written warning, and permit separation only through faithful implementation of the pre-report plan: all four positions eliminated February 15, no substantially similar replacement work, independent review, and eight weeks’ severance. If the function continues, both leave Kestrel on the same material path of retaining Maya rather than terminating her on the present record, while preserving evidence and avoiding retaliatory communications.\n\n[B] rejected: assumed regulatory-reporting duties arising from the audit — record lacks governing regulatory-reporting requirements.\n[B] rejected: defamation, standalone retaliation, and projected damages from the CEO’s announcement — record lacks the governing rules and facts needed for those conclusions.\n[B] rejected: mandatory release carveouts and unenforceability conclusions — record lacks governing release law.\n[B] rejected: Maya received Kestrel’s first written warning issued to any analyst — record establishes only the treatment of analysts with comparable late reports.\n\nFailed candidate: B’s criteria-first retention alternative versus A’s direction to retain Maya — concrete consequence failed because no criteria or selection outcome establishes that Maya would be separated.\nFailed candidate: B’s recommendation to rescind the January 10 warning — concrete consequence failed because the record does not establish that rescission, rather than preservation and nonreliance, changes liability or the separation decision.\nFailed candidate: B’s broader removal of Reid from Maya’s chain of command — likelihood failed because no further Reid-driven action is established once both answers require independent review.\nFailed candidate: A’s negotiated-separation option — likelihood failed because the record gives no indication Maya would voluntarily agree.\nFailed candidate: differences in preservation mechanics and independent-review detail — different conduct failed because both direct preservation of the required materials and an untainted decision process.\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"
    ]
  }
}