{
  "question": "q51",
  "model_1": "Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL",
  "model_2": "claude-opus-5",
  "answer_a_was": "claude-opus-5",
  "answer_b_was": "Qwen3.5-27B-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": 9085,
    "completion_tokens": 2296,
    "total_tokens": 11381,
    "cost": 0.1256575,
    "is_byok": false,
    "prompt_tokens_details": {
      "cached_tokens": 0,
      "cache_write_tokens": 9082,
      "audio_tokens": 0,
      "video_tokens": 0
    },
    "cost_details": {
      "upstream_inference_cost": 0.1256575,
      "upstream_inference_prompt_cost": 0.0567775,
      "upstream_inference_completions_cost": 0.06888
    },
    "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 records, investigate independently, exclude materially interested voters, use only proportionate interim restrictions, provide proper notice and response rights, and pay Rafi’s vested $920,000 allocation. Both permit later proportionate discipline or valid expulsion only if independent misconduct is substantiated through a disinterested and procedurally compliant process.\n\n[A] rejected: Rule 2 provides a “closed list” of cause — the rule says cause “includes” the listed grounds, not that the list is exclusive.\n[A] rejected: escrow may substitute for payment of the $920,000 after June 30 — the record identifies a vested prior-year allocation scheduled for payment June 30 and supplies no lawful basis for delayed payment.\n[A] rejected: categorical privilege, individual-liability, insurance, and regulatory consequences — the record supplies no governing rules establishing those propositions.\n[A] rejected: partners should not discuss the report or audit with Rafi — internally inconsistent with preserving his audit participation and access to defense materials.\n[B] rejected: punitive damages may be available — Rule 8 identifies proven damages but supplies no punitive-damages authority.\n[B] rejected: negotiated separation is the only legally sound path — internally inconsistent with its own independent-investigation and lawful-expulsion analysis.\n\nFailed candidates.\nExact future response period and interview procedures — Different conduct failed; both require a meaningful opportunity to respond, and no record-supported outcome turns on A’s proposed 14–21 days.\nScope of recusals beyond partners financially interested or exposed by the report — Concrete consequence failed; both conclude the present voting pool is unusable and the vote must be paused.\nEscrow versus direct payment — No safe neutralization failed; A’s escrow alternative is visibly inconsistent with its own payment analysis and the supplied vesting facts.\nA’s more detailed prospective-warning path — Different conduct failed; both reserve discipline or expulsion for independently substantiated misconduct after compliant process.\nSeparation confidentiality and protected-reporting carve-outs — Likelihood failed; B also directs that the billing investigation continue without interference, and the record does not show its proposed NDA would restrict protected cooperation.\nAdditional litigation, insurance, privilege, and regulatory warnings in A — Record support failed; they do not alter the shared required course under the supplied rules.\nB’s “only legally sound path” language — No safe neutralization failed; ordinary reading rejects it because B expressly describes other lawful paths.\n\nHard stop. The sentence cannot be completed with a concrete, record-supported consequence because both answers place Hallowmere on the same materially safe course.",
  "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"
    ]
  }
}