{
  "question": "q51",
  "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": 10289,
    "completion_tokens": 2139,
    "total_tokens": 12428,
    "cost": 0.1284725,
    "is_byok": false,
    "prompt_tokens_details": {
      "cached_tokens": 0,
      "cache_write_tokens": 10286,
      "audio_tokens": 0,
      "video_tokens": 0
    },
    "cost_details": {
      "upstream_inference_cost": 0.1284725,
      "upstream_inference_prompt_cost": 0.0643025,
      "upstream_inference_completions_cost": 0.06417
    },
    "completion_tokens_details": {
      "reasoning_tokens": 1757,
      "image_tokens": 0,
      "audio_tokens": 0
    }
  },
  "eval_prompt_sha256": "7e58b951cb86e4deba3b60fd01e9b9bd247ebe9883e1c9e43b24acffb1fd4667",
  "provenance_date": "2026-08-08",
  "report": "TIE, FUNCTIONALLY EQUIVALENT.\n\nBasis. Both answers direct Hallowmere to cancel the three-day vote, preserve evidence, protect and pay the vested allocation, use only proportionate interim restrictions, and conduct an independent investigation through disinterested decision-makers. Both permit future discipline or expulsion only for independently substantiated cause after compliant notice, evidence access, response time, and voting procedures, so the client reaches the same materially safe position.\n\n[A] rejected: “Cause under Rule 2 is a closed list” — record says cause “includes” the listed grounds but does not state exclusivity.\n[A] rejected: all email recipients remain disqualified after irrevocable payment of the allocation — record does not establish that mere receipt creates a material personal interest under Rule 5.\n[A] rejected: four clean votes after curing the financial conflict “is not achievable” — record lacks facts supporting that prediction.\n[A] rejected: a fixed 14-to-21-day response period is required — record requires a meaningful opportunity but specifies no fixed period.\n[A] rejected: no partner should discuss the report or audit with Rafi — internally inconsistent with A’s directions preserving his audit and investigative communications.\n[B] rejected: placing the allocation in escrow necessarily removes the voters’ financial interest — record does not establish that a contingent escrow prevents later redistribution.\n\nFailed candidate: Scope of post-payment voter recusals — record support failed.\nFailed candidate: Fixed response period versus a reasonable period — different conduct failed.\nFailed candidate: Irrevocable payment versus unspecified escrow — different conduct failed.\nFailed candidate: Timing of negotiated-separation discussions — concrete consequence failed.\nFailed candidate: Additional warnings concerning insurance, privilege, and regulatory exposure — concrete consequence failed.\nFailed candidate: Closed versus nonexclusive cause categories — concrete consequence 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"
    ]
  }
}