{
  "question": "q50",
  "model_1": "Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL",
  "model_2": "claude-opus-5",
  "answer_a_was": "Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL",
  "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": 8216,
    "completion_tokens": 1989,
    "total_tokens": 10205,
    "cost": 0.11101625,
    "is_byok": false,
    "prompt_tokens_details": {
      "cached_tokens": 0,
      "cache_write_tokens": 8213,
      "audio_tokens": 0,
      "video_tokens": 0
    },
    "cost_details": {
      "upstream_inference_cost": 0.11101625,
      "upstream_inference_prompt_cost": 0.05134625,
      "upstream_inference_completions_cost": 0.05967
    },
    "completion_tokens_details": {
      "reasoning_tokens": 1552,
      "image_tokens": 0,
      "audio_tokens": 0
    }
  },
  "eval_prompt_sha256": "7e58b951cb86e4deba3b60fd01e9b9bd247ebe9883e1c9e43b24acffb1fd4667",
  "provenance_date": "2026-08-08",
  "report": "TIE, FUNCTIONALLY EQUIVALENT.\n\nBasis. Both answers place the members on the same material path: the side letter is incorporated, neither may make the present hybrid appointment unilaterally, Julian cannot execute the loan, prior conduct created no waiver, and the informed lender cannot rely on apparent authority. Both direct the members to preserve access and operations, avoid unauthorized commitments, and use notice, the five-business-day meeting, mediation, and narrow resolution rather than dissolution.\n\n[A] rejected: deadlock steps are required before any “court intervention” — record limits the precondition to judicial dissolution.\n[A] rejected: reducing base salary to $250,000 or less necessarily avoids joint approval — record uses annual compensation and supplies no bonus terms.\n[A] rejected: unilateral conduct could create personal liability, company contract claims, or fiduciary-duty liability — record supplies no rules establishing those liabilities.\n[B] rejected: a premature dissolution petition should be dismissed or stayed and could prejudice valuation — record supplies no procedural or valuation rule.\n[B] rejected: expiration of the side letter will resolve the allocation problem — internally inconsistent with the resulting return to joint approval.\n[B] rejected: Julian’s signature could create personal liability or company claims — record supplies no rules establishing those liabilities.\n\nFailed candidates. Product-only $285,000 appointment: concrete consequence failed; no client outcome from pursuing or foregoing that hypothetical redesigned role is established.\nFailed candidates. Answer A’s base-salary workaround: record support failed; total annual compensation is unspecified.\nFailed candidates. Scope of pre-dissolution judicial relief: no safe neutralization failed; the supplied rule itself allows ordinary rejection of Answer A’s overstatement.\nFailed candidates. Answer B’s additional standstill, preservation, lender-notice, and financing-option details: different conduct failed; Answer A already directs materially equivalent noncommitment, access preservation, and deadlock processing.\nFailed candidates. Unsupported liability and remedy predictions: record support failed.\n\nHard stop. The sentence cannot be completed with a concrete, record-supported consequence because both answers lead the readers to withhold the appointment and loan, preserve operations, and invoke the same deadlock process.",
  "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"
    ]
  }
}