{
  "question": "q50",
  "model_1": "Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL",
  "model_2": "claude-opus-5",
  "answer_a_was": "claude-opus-5",
  "answer_b_was": "Qwen3.8-27B-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": 13099,
    "completion_tokens": 2355,
    "total_tokens": 15454,
    "cost": 0.152515,
    "is_byok": false,
    "prompt_tokens_details": {
      "cached_tokens": 0,
      "cache_write_tokens": 13096,
      "audio_tokens": 0,
      "video_tokens": 0
    },
    "cost_details": {
      "upstream_inference_cost": 0.152515,
      "upstream_inference_prompt_cost": 0.081865,
      "upstream_inference_completions_cost": 0.07065
    },
    "completion_tokens_details": {
      "reasoning_tokens": 1957,
      "image_tokens": 0,
      "audio_tokens": 0
    }
  },
  "eval_prompt_sha256": "7e58b951cb86e4deba3b60fd01e9b9bd247ebe9883e1c9e43b24acffb1fd4667",
  "report": "TIE, FUNCTIONALLY EQUIVALENT.\n\nBasis. Both answers place the members on the same material path: the incorporated side letter controls within its scope, neither the present hybrid appointment nor the bridge loan should proceed unilaterally, the informed lender cannot rely on apparent authority, and prior conduct created no waiver. Both direct the members to preserve access and operations, maintain financing options without commitment, and complete notice, executive meeting, and mediation before seeking narrow judicial relief.\n\n[A] rejected: Julian’s unauthorized signature could expose him personally — record lacks any rule governing personal liability.\n[A] rejected: specific performance or damages are available under rule 4 in this dispute — record lacks a separate unincorporated contract to which rule 4 applies.\n[B] rejected: the role contains 35 percent non-product duties — record does not classify the 10 percent pricing-analytics duties as outside product strategy.\n[A] rejected: company funds cannot be used for one member’s litigation position without joint approval — record lacks the budget facts or an applicable joint-approval rule.\n\nFailed candidates. Treatment of pricing analytics — different conduct failed; both reject unilateral appointment of the current hybrid role.\nFailed candidates. Unilateral appointment of a narrowed product-only role above $250,000 — likelihood failed; both identify residual uncertainty and recommend consent or declaratory resolution.\nFailed candidates. Personal-liability and remedy assertions — no safe neutralization failed because ordinary record verification rejects them without changing company conduct.\nFailed candidates. Budget-status verification raised expressly only by B — record support failed because the supplied facts do not state whether the appointment is within the approved budget.\nFailed candidates. Different financing and settlement alternatives — concrete consequence failed; no record-supported transaction outcome follows from the additional options.\nFailed candidates. Characterization of the threatened bank restriction — different conduct failed; both direct Mara not to use it as lockout or leverage.\n\nHard stop. It 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"
    ]
  }
}