{
  "question": "q27",
  "model_1": "Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL",
  "model_2": "Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL",
  "answer_a_was": "Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL",
  "answer_b_was": "Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL",
  "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": 10500,
    "completion_tokens": 1506,
    "total_tokens": 12006,
    "cost": 0.11080125,
    "is_byok": false,
    "prompt_tokens_details": {
      "cached_tokens": 0,
      "cache_write_tokens": 10497,
      "audio_tokens": 0,
      "video_tokens": 0
    },
    "cost_details": {
      "upstream_inference_cost": 0.11080125,
      "upstream_inference_prompt_cost": 0.06562125,
      "upstream_inference_completions_cost": 0.04518
    },
    "completion_tokens_details": {
      "reasoning_tokens": 1181,
      "image_tokens": 0,
      "audio_tokens": 0
    }
  },
  "eval_prompt_sha256": "7e58b951cb86e4deba3b60fd01e9b9bd247ebe9883e1c9e43b24acffb1fd4667",
  "report": "TIE, FUNCTIONALLY EQUIVALENT.\n\nBasis. Both answers direct Kestrel to reject a for-cause termination, exclude Reid’s tainted recommendation, preserve relevant records, and proceed only through the genuine December 18 restructuring on its original terms with eight weeks of severance and no substantially identical replacement. If that restructuring is not genuine, both leave Maya employed and recognize that the January 28 conduct supports, at most, policy-consistent discipline.\n\n[B] rejected: retaining the other three employees might remain defensible through objective, pre-existing documentation — record lacks any such criteria and identifies all four positions for elimination.\n[B] rejected: the known January 28 incident implicates Rule 6 as justification for significant damages — internally inconsistent with B’s acknowledgment that the evidence was known before termination.\n\nFailed candidate: B’s conditional opening for retaining the other three group members — different conduct failed because ordinary verification eliminates that unsupported option on this record.\nFailed candidate: A expressly recommends a written warning if no genuine RIF, while B does not repeat that recommendation in its conclusion — different conduct failed because B’s analysis also identifies a written warning as the policy-consistent consequence.\nFailed candidate: A specifies waiting until the February 15 effective date more expressly — different conduct failed because B conditions implementation on consistency with the original restructuring plan.\nFailed candidate: B permits final approval by the CEO or HR rather than specifying counsel-led review — concrete consequence failed because both require an independent decision based solely on the genuine pre-report RIF.\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"
    ]
  }
}