{
  "question": "q50",
  "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": 8636,
    "completion_tokens": 2340,
    "total_tokens": 10976,
    "cost": 0.12417125,
    "is_byok": false,
    "prompt_tokens_details": {
      "cached_tokens": 0,
      "cache_write_tokens": 8633,
      "audio_tokens": 0,
      "video_tokens": 0
    },
    "cost_details": {
      "upstream_inference_cost": 0.12417125,
      "upstream_inference_prompt_cost": 0.05397125,
      "upstream_inference_completions_cost": 0.0702
    },
    "completion_tokens_details": {
      "reasoning_tokens": 1972,
      "image_tokens": 0,
      "audio_tokens": 0
    }
  },
  "eval_prompt_sha256": "7e58b951cb86e4deba3b60fd01e9b9bd247ebe9883e1c9e43b24acffb1fd4667",
  "provenance_date": "2026-08-08",
  "report": "TIE, FUNCTIONALLY EQUIVALENT.\n\nBasis. Both readers conclude that the incorporated side letter controls only within its specific scope, that neither member should unilaterally make the proposed hybrid appointment, and that Julian cannot bind the company to the $1.2 million loan. Both preserve records and operations, reject waiver and apparent authority, maintain financing preparation without commitment, and direct the members through notice, the executive meeting, mediation, and—if necessary—a narrow declaration.\n\n[A] rejected: Julian’s signature could expose him personally to the lender or company — record lacks personal-liability rules.\n[A] rejected: a contingent offer would not itself constitute an above-threshold commitment — record lacks contract-formation rules for such an offer.\n[B] rejected: the operating agreement requires joint approval for any issuance of debt — record states joint approval for debt above $500,000.\n\nFailed candidates.\nNarrowed product-only appointment — Different conduct failed: both answers propose narrowing the role and recognize that unresolved authority may require joint approval or declaratory relief.\nSub-$250,000 product hire — Concrete consequence failed: the record does not establish that Rhea or another suitable candidate would accept such a position.\nContingent offer to Rhea — Concrete consequence failed: no record-supported benefit or harm from issuing rather than withholding it is established.\nPersonal exposure from Julian’s signature — Record support failed: the supplied rules do not establish personal liability.\nAny-debt versus above-$500,000 approval threshold — Different conduct failed: the disputed loan is $1.2 million and both readers withhold authorization.\nAdditional preservation, counsel, and remedy details in Answer A — Concrete consequence failed: no different client outcome is demonstrated.\n\nHard stop. The sentence cannot be completed with a concrete, record-supported consequence caused by either answer.",
  "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"
    ]
  }
}