{
  "question": "q27",
  "model_1": "Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL",
  "model_2": "claude-opus-5",
  "answer_a_was": "claude-opus-5",
  "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": 7744,
    "completion_tokens": 2360,
    "total_tokens": 10104,
    "cost": 0.11919625,
    "is_byok": false,
    "prompt_tokens_details": {
      "cached_tokens": 0,
      "cache_write_tokens": 7741,
      "audio_tokens": 0,
      "video_tokens": 0
    },
    "cost_details": {
      "upstream_inference_cost": 0.11919625,
      "upstream_inference_prompt_cost": 0.04839625,
      "upstream_inference_completions_cost": 0.0708
    },
    "completion_tokens_details": {
      "reasoning_tokens": 2050,
      "image_tokens": 0,
      "audio_tokens": 0
    }
  },
  "eval_prompt_sha256": "7e58b951cb86e4deba3b60fd01e9b9bd247ebe9883e1c9e43b24acffb1fd4667",
  "provenance_date": "2026-08-08",
  "report": "TIE, FUNCTIONALLY EQUIVALENT.\n\nBasis. Both answers reject immediate for-cause termination and place Kestrel on the same safe path: implement the genuine December 18 plan as written, eliminate all four positions, pay eight weeks’ severance, avoid substantially identical replacement work, exclude Reid, preserve evidence, and use neutral communications. If the function continues or the other three employees are retained without pre-existing objective grounds, both ultimately require Maya’s retention rather than separation.\n\n[B] rejected: suggestion that Kestrel may approve the RIF for Maya while retaining the other three if it can “ensure documentation exists” — record lacks pre-existing objective selection criteria and the December plan identifies all four positions for elimination.\n[A] rejected: regulatory-reporting duties, defamation exposure, release restrictions, and projected damages — record lacks governing rules supporting those conclusions.\n[A] rejected: January 10 warning is independently adverse action — record does not establish that the warning was materially adverse.\n\nFailed candidates.\nMaya-only RIF while retaining the other three — no safe neutralization failed.\nExpress rescission of the January 10 warning — concrete consequence failed.\nExpress issuance of the transfer warning — concrete consequence failed.\nDifferent detail concerning independent review and preservation — different conduct failed.\nAncillary release, regulatory, defamation, and damages advice — record support failed.\nAnswer B’s imprecise after-acquired-evidence discussion — different conduct failed.\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"
    ]
  }
}