{
  "question": "q51",
  "model_1": "DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS",
  "model_2": "Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL",
  "answer_a_was": "Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL",
  "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": 13897,
    "completion_tokens": 1679,
    "total_tokens": 15576,
    "cost": 0.1372225,
    "is_byok": false,
    "prompt_tokens_details": {
      "cached_tokens": 0,
      "cache_write_tokens": 13894,
      "audio_tokens": 0,
      "video_tokens": 0
    },
    "cost_details": {
      "upstream_inference_cost": 0.1372225,
      "upstream_inference_prompt_cost": 0.0868525,
      "upstream_inference_completions_cost": 0.05037
    },
    "completion_tokens_details": {
      "reasoning_tokens": 1379,
      "image_tokens": 0,
      "audio_tokens": 0
    }
  },
  "eval_prompt_sha256": "7e58b951cb86e4deba3b60fd01e9b9bd247ebe9883e1c9e43b24acffb1fd4667",
  "report": "TIE, FUNCTIONALLY EQUIVALENT.\n\nBasis. Both answers direct Hallowmere to cancel the three-day vote, preserve evidence, treat the $920,000 as vested, remove materially interested decision-makers, conduct an independent investigation, and use only proportionate interim restrictions. Both permit a renewed expulsion process only if independent misconduct establishes cause and Rafi receives specific notice, evidence access, a meaningful response opportunity, and a vote by disinterested partners.\n\nB rejected: escrow as an alternative on the existing record — record lacks an express lawful forfeiture provision or other legitimate dispute over the vested allocation.\n\nFailed candidates. Escrow option for the allocation — likelihood failed because Answer B conditions escrow on a legitimate dispute that the supplied record does not establish.\nFailed candidates. Managing-partner recusal formulation — concrete consequence failed because both answers remove conflicted control, and the record does not show that any residual voting difference changes the result.\nFailed candidates. Answer A’s suggested 10-to-14-business-day response period — different conduct failed because it is illustrative and both answers require a reasonable, meaningful response period.\nFailed candidates. Investigation and separation sequencing — different conduct failed because both answers require independent investigation before coercive action and allow only a fair, voluntary separation.\nFailed candidates. Additional procedural and preservation detail in Answer A — different conduct failed because Answer B directs the same material safeguards and course.\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"
    ]
  }
}