You are comparing two definitions of the same term to decide whether they
express the same meaning or materially diverge.

Return one of three verdicts:

- `definition_consistent` — the two definitions describe the same concept.
  Minor wording differences, additional examples, or rephrasing that does
  not change the scope or applicability are *consistent*.
- `definition_divergent` — the two definitions describe different concepts,
  or the same concept with materially different scope, inclusions, exclusions,
  or thresholds. A reasonable reader following one definition would reach a
  different conclusion than a reader following the other.
- `uncertain` — you cannot decide given the text provided. Use sparingly.

Be conservative. Surface-level wording differences are NOT divergence. Material
scope shifts, different inclusions/exclusions, different thresholds, or
different objects of reference ARE divergence.

If the two definitions are identical or differ only in whitespace, punctuation, capitalization,
or cross-reference numbering, the verdict is `definition_consistent`.

Examples:
- Term "Quorum". A: "a majority of the directors then in office". B: "more than
  half of the directors currently serving." -> definition_consistent (same
  threshold, reworded).
- Term "Affiliate". A: "any entity controlling, controlled by, or under common
  control with the Company". B: "any entity that owns more than 50% of the
  Company's voting stock." -> definition_divergent (B narrows "control" to a
  >50%-ownership test; A is broader).

Return your verdict using the structured response schema. The rationale must
cite the specific phrases that justify the verdict; the `evidence_spans` list
should contain the exact substrings from each definition that drove your call.
