[ { "qid": "q01", "number": 1, "series": "Series 1", "title": "The Pharmaceutical Packaging Line", "category": "Commercial contracts", "matter_page": "matters/q01/index.html", "question_file": "evidence/series-1/questions/q01.md", "key_file": "evidence/series-1/keys/q01.md", "answers": { "deepseek": "evidence/series-1/answers/DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS/DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS__q01_r1.md", "claude": "evidence/series-1/answers/claude-opus-5/claude-opus-5__q01_r1.md", "qwen35": "evidence/series-1/answers/Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL/Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__q01_r1.md", "qwen38": "evidence/series-1/answers/Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL/Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__q01_r1.md" }, "reasoning": { "deepseek": "evidence/series-1/answers/DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS/DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS__q01_r1.reasoning.md", "claude": "evidence/series-1/answers/claude-opus-5/claude-opus-5__q01_r1.reasoning.md", "qwen35": "evidence/series-1/answers/Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL/Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__q01_r1.reasoning.md", "qwen38": "evidence/series-1/answers/Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL/Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__q01_r1.reasoning.md" }, "pairings": { "qwen38-claude": { "key": "qwen38-claude", "label": "Qwen 3.8 vs Claude", "first": "qwen38", "second": "claude", "status": "tie", "result": "Functional tie", "short_result": "Tie", "basis": "Both answers place LumaBio on the same material path: preserve evidence, issue a specific deduction notice, verify performance under compliant humidity and film conditions, avoid immediate litigation or continued unsecured withholding, and negotiate an engineering remedy plus a supported credit. Both conclude that rejection and revocation are unavailable, consequential damages are contractually excluded absent fraud, fraud is impaired by reliance evidence, and an adverse inference is unlikely without intent.", "short_basis": "Both answers place LumaBio on the same material path: preserve evidence, issue a specific deduction notice, verify performance under compliant humidity and film conditions, avoid immediate litigation or continued unsecured withholding, and negotiate an engineering remedy plus a supported credit.", "answer_a_was": "claude-opus-5", "answer_b_was": "Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_a_display": "Claude Opus 5", "answer_b_display": "Qwen 3.8 27B", "winner": "TIE", "verdict_code": "TIE", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-1/verdicts/q01__Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__vs__claude-opus-5.json" }, "qwen38-deepseek": { "key": "qwen38-deepseek", "label": "Qwen 3.8 vs DeepSeek", "first": "qwen38", "second": "deepseek", "status": "tie", "result": "Functional tie", "short_result": "Tie", "basis": "Both answers put LumaBio on the same material path: treat rejection and revocation as unavailable, preserve and specify its warranty/fraud claims, give explicit setoff notice, protect the disputed installment through escrow or negotiation, demand engineering relief, and litigate only if settlement fails. Both also recognize that ordinary contract damages are constrained, fraud is reliance-sensitive, and the telemetry deletion supports at most prejudice-based curative measures absent intent.", "short_basis": "Both answers put LumaBio on the same material path: treat rejection and revocation as unavailable, preserve and specify its warranty/fraud claims, give explicit setoff notice, protect the disputed installment through escrow or negotiation, demand engineering relief, and litigate only if settlement fails.", "answer_a_was": "Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_b_was": "DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS", "answer_a_display": "Qwen 3.8 27B", "answer_b_display": "DeepSeek V4-Flash-0731", "winner": "TIE", "verdict_code": "TIE", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-1/verdicts/q01__DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS__vs__Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL.json" }, "qwen38-qwen35": { "key": "qwen38-qwen35", "label": "Qwen 3.8 vs Qwen 3.5", "first": "qwen38", "second": "qwen35", "status": "tie", "result": "Functional tie", "short_result": "Tie", "basis": "Both answers place LumaBio on the same material path: treat rejection or revocation as weak, preserve and formally notice its breach and setoff positions, pursue engineering work and a negotiated credit, and reserve litigation principally as fraud leverage. Their differing assessments of claim strength, telemetry sanctions, damages classification, and payment mechanics do not establish a different concrete outcome because both ultimately recommend negotiated resolution rather than immediate payment or suit.", "short_basis": "Both answers place LumaBio on the same material path: treat rejection or revocation as weak, preserve and formally notice its breach and setoff positions, pursue engineering work and a negotiated credit, and reserve litigation principally as fraud leverage.", "answer_a_was": "Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_b_was": "Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_a_display": "Qwen 3.5 27B", "answer_b_display": "Qwen 3.8 27B", "winner": "TIE", "verdict_code": "TIE", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-1/verdicts/q01__Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__vs__Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL.json" }, "deepseek-claude": { "key": "deepseek-claude", "label": "DeepSeek vs Claude", "first": "deepseek", "second": "claude", "status": "tie", "result": "Functional tie", "short_result": "Tie", "basis": "Both answers place LumaBio on the same material path: give explicit deduction notice, avoid immediate litigation or unconditional payment, seek an engineered cure and commercial settlement, and preserve warranty and fraud claims while recognizing that revocation and consequential damages are unlikely absent fraud. Their differences do not establish a record-supported change in conduct that predictably improves LumaBio’s legal, financial, or operational outcome.", "short_basis": "Both answers place LumaBio on the same material path: give explicit deduction notice, avoid immediate litigation or unconditional payment, seek an engineered cure and commercial settlement, and preserve warranty and fraud claims while recognizing that revocation and consequential damages are unlikely absent…", "answer_a_was": "claude-opus-5", "answer_b_was": "DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS", "answer_a_display": "Claude Opus 5", "answer_b_display": "DeepSeek V4-Flash-0731", "winner": "TIE", "verdict_code": "TIE", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-1/verdicts/q01__DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS__vs__claude-opus-5.json" }, "deepseek-qwen35": { "key": "deepseek-qwen35", "label": "DeepSeek vs Qwen 3.5", "first": "deepseek", "second": "qwen35", "status": "tie", "result": "Functional tie", "short_result": "Tie", "basis": "Both answers lead LumaBio to negotiate before litigating, maintain the withholding only with explicit offset notice, demand an engineering cure, preserve breach and fraud claims, and treat rejection or revocation as impractical. Both also recognize that ordinary contract damages are limited, consequential losses depend principally on proving fraud, and the record does not presently support an adverse inference for telemetry deletion.", "short_basis": "Both answers lead LumaBio to negotiate before litigating, maintain the withholding only with explicit offset notice, demand an engineering cure, preserve breach and fraud claims, and treat rejection or revocation as impractical.", "answer_a_was": "DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS", "answer_b_was": "Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_a_display": "DeepSeek V4-Flash-0731", "answer_b_display": "Qwen 3.5 27B", "winner": "TIE", "verdict_code": "TIE", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-1/verdicts/q01__DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS__vs__Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL.json" }, "qwen35-claude": { "key": "qwen35-claude", "label": "Qwen 3.5 vs Claude", "first": "qwen35", "second": "claude", "status": "tie", "result": "Functional tie", "short_result": "Tie", "basis": "Both answers place LumaBio on the same material path: treat the line as accepted, preserve warranty and fraud theories, recognize that consequential damages remain excluded absent fraud, provide a specific deduction notice, and negotiate an engineering cure plus price credit rather than immediately litigating or paying in full. Their differences in claim strength, withholding posture, testing sequence, and spoliation leverage do not establish a concrete, record-supported difference in LumaBio’s ultimate legal, financial, or operational position.", "short_basis": "Both answers place LumaBio on the same material path: treat the line as accepted, preserve warranty and fraud theories, recognize that consequential damages remain excluded absent fraud, provide a specific deduction notice, and negotiate an engineering cure plus price credit rather than immediately…", "answer_a_was": "Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_b_was": "claude-opus-5", "answer_a_display": "Qwen 3.5 27B", "answer_b_display": "Claude Opus 5", "winner": "TIE", "verdict_code": "TIE", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-1/verdicts/q01__Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__vs__claude-opus-5.json" } }, "rejected_points": { "qwen38": 0, "deepseek": 3, "claude": 8, "qwen35": 7 }, "delivery_filter_matter": false }, { "qid": "q02", "number": 2, "series": "Series 1", "title": "The Remote Accommodation Termination", "category": "Employment", "matter_page": "matters/q02/index.html", "question_file": "evidence/series-1/questions/q02.md", "key_file": "evidence/series-1/keys/q02.md", "answers": { "deepseek": "evidence/series-1/answers/DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS/DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS__q02_r1.md", "claude": "evidence/series-1/answers/claude-opus-5/claude-opus-5__q02_r1.md", "qwen35": "evidence/series-1/answers/Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL/Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__q02_r1.md", "qwen38": "evidence/series-1/answers/Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL/Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__q02_r1.md" }, "reasoning": { "deepseek": "evidence/series-1/answers/DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS/DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS__q02_r1.reasoning.md", "claude": "evidence/series-1/answers/claude-opus-5/claude-opus-5__q02_r1.reasoning.md", "qwen35": "evidence/series-1/answers/Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL/Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__q02_r1.reasoning.md", "qwen38": "evidence/series-1/answers/Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL/Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__q02_r1.reasoning.md" }, "pairings": { "qwen38-claude": { "key": "qwen38-claude", "label": "Qwen 3.8 vs Claude", "first": "qwen38", "second": "claude", "status": "frontier", "result": "Claude win", "short_result": "Claude win", "basis": "Answer A identifies a separate, unconditional reinstatement offer as a mitigation measure, while Answer B recommends reinstatement only within a negotiated settlement requiring a release. A competent professional following Answer A would preserve the settlement strategy while potentially stopping or limiting Corvid’s uncapped back-pay and front-pay exposure; Answer B leaves those damages accruing. Exact difference. Answer B says reinstatement should occur “only as a component of a negotiated settlement,” omitting Answer A’s separate, unconditional reinstatement offer. Different conduct. Professional A sends an unconditional reinstatement-with-accommodation offer separately from settlement negotiations; Professional B makes no offer unless Dana also releases her claims. Concrete consequence. If Dana accepts or rejects a legally sufficient unconditional offer, Corvid can stop or limit continuing back-pay and front-pay exposure that otherwise accrues at approximately $10,667 monthly. Record support. Dana earns $128,000 annually, has already accrued five months of unemployment damages, and Rule 10 expressly leaves back pay and front pay uncapped. Material magnitude. Avoiding even 6–12 additional months of wage-based exposure protects approximately $64,000–$128,000, apart from benefits and fees. Likelihood. Given the strong liability evidence and ongoing unemployment, rational counsel would use a valid reinstatement offer now to mitigate an expanding uncapped component. No safe neutralization by ordinary verification. Verification can confirm the offer’s required legal form, but supplying and separating this mitigation strategy would require Professional B to construct analysis and action that Answer B expressly rejected.", "short_basis": "Answer A identifies a separate, unconditional reinstatement offer as a mitigation measure, while Answer B recommends reinstatement only within a negotiated settlement requiring a release.", "answer_a_was": "claude-opus-5", "answer_b_was": "Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_a_display": "Claude Opus 5", "answer_b_display": "Qwen 3.8 27B", "winner": "claude-opus-5", "verdict_code": "A", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-1/verdicts/q02__Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__vs__claude-opus-5.json" }, "qwen38-deepseek": { "key": "qwen38-deepseek", "label": "Qwen 3.8 vs DeepSeek", "first": "qwen38", "second": "deepseek", "status": "tie", "result": "Functional tie", "short_result": "Tie", "basis": "Both answers direct Corvid away from contesting the charge and toward an early negotiated settlement, correctly recognizing that the $300,000 cap excludes back pay, front pay, and attorney fees. Both treat a settlement near the existing $450,000 demand as defensible, allow reinstatement with accommodation as a settlement component, and recommend materially similar compliance changes; their differing preferences and valuation estimates do not establish a better concrete outcome for Corvid.", "short_basis": "Both answers direct Corvid away from contesting the charge and toward an early negotiated settlement, correctly recognizing that the $300,000 cap excludes back pay, front pay, and attorney fees.", "answer_a_was": "DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS", "answer_b_was": "Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_a_display": "DeepSeek V4-Flash-0731", "answer_b_display": "Qwen 3.8 27B", "winner": "TIE", "verdict_code": "TIE", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-1/verdicts/q02__DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS__vs__Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL.json" }, "qwen38-qwen35": { "key": "qwen38-qwen35", "label": "Qwen 3.8 vs Qwen 3.5", "first": "qwen38", "second": "qwen35", "status": "tie", "result": "Functional tie", "short_result": "Tie", "basis": "Both answers direct Corvid to pursue a paid settlement with a release rather than contest the charge or offer reinstatement alone, while recognizing substantial liability, uncapped back/front pay and fees, and the $300,000 compensatory/punitive cap. Their settlement ranges differ, but the record does not establish whether paying more would avoid greater litigation exposure or instead overpay, so no direction of material harm is proven.", "short_basis": "Both answers direct Corvid to pursue a paid settlement with a release rather than contest the charge or offer reinstatement alone, while recognizing substantial liability, uncapped back/front pay and fees, and the $300,000 compensatory/punitive cap.", "answer_a_was": "Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_b_was": "Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_a_display": "Qwen 3.5 27B", "answer_b_display": "Qwen 3.8 27B", "winner": "TIE", "verdict_code": "TIE", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-1/verdicts/q02__Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__vs__Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL.json" }, "deepseek-claude": { "key": "deepseek-claude", "label": "DeepSeek vs Claude", "first": "deepseek", "second": "claude", "status": "tie", "result": "Functional tie", "short_result": "Tie", "basis": "Both answers direct Corvid away from a merits fight and toward early settlement or reinstatement with Dana’s accommodation, while preserving evidence and correcting accommodation and leave procedures. The differing exposure estimates, settlement ranges, and tactical details do not establish a materially safer or better client outcome on the supplied record.", "short_basis": "Both answers direct Corvid away from a merits fight and toward early settlement or reinstatement with Dana’s accommodation, while preserving evidence and correcting accommodation and leave procedures.", "answer_a_was": "claude-opus-5", "answer_b_was": "DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS", "answer_a_display": "Claude Opus 5", "answer_b_display": "DeepSeek V4-Flash-0731", "winner": "TIE", "verdict_code": "TIE", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-1/verdicts/q02__DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS__vs__claude-opus-5.json" }, "deepseek-qwen35": { "key": "deepseek-qwen35", "label": "DeepSeek vs Qwen 3.5", "first": "deepseek", "second": "qwen35", "status": "tie", "result": "Functional tie", "short_result": "Tie", "basis": "Both answers direct Corvid toward early settlement based on high liability exposure, recognize that back pay, front pay, and fees fall outside the $300,000 cap, and recommend prospective process changes. Their differing settlement ranges and reinstatement positions would alter negotiating instructions, but the record does not establish Dana’s reservation price, reinstatement feasibility, or which approach would produce a materially better outcome for Corvid.", "short_basis": "Both answers direct Corvid toward early settlement based on high liability exposure, recognize that back pay, front pay, and fees fall outside the $300,000 cap, and recommend prospective process changes.", "answer_a_was": "DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS", "answer_b_was": "Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_a_display": "DeepSeek V4-Flash-0731", "answer_b_display": "Qwen 3.5 27B", "winner": "TIE", "verdict_code": "TIE", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-1/verdicts/q02__DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS__vs__Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL.json" }, "qwen35-claude": { "key": "qwen35-claude", "label": "Qwen 3.5 vs Claude", "first": "qwen35", "second": "claude", "status": "frontier", "result": "Claude win", "short_result": "Claude win", "basis": "Answer A recommends an immediate, unconditional reinstatement offer with Dana’s requested accommodation, while Answer B advises against reinstatement based on unsupported predictions of future hostility. The offer would likely stop or materially limit continued accrual of uncapped back pay and front pay while settlement negotiations proceed. Answer A’s unsupported ancillary exposure assumptions can be discarded without affecting this mitigation step. Exact difference. A recommends an unconditional reinstatement-with-accommodation offer; B says, “Do Not Reinstated” because reinstatement allegedly creates hostile-environment and retaliation risks. Different conduct. Corvid following A promptly offers the same position, compensation, accommodation, and a different manager; Corvid following B makes no offer and pursues settlement alone. Concrete consequence. Under A, acceptance ends unemployment-related accrual and refusal likely limits mitigation-based back-pay and front-pay exposure; under B, those uncapped remedies continue accruing during negotiations and litigation. Record support. Dana earns $128,000, remains unemployed, and Law 10 expressly leaves back pay and front pay uncapped; no supplied fact supports B’s prediction of inevitable post-reinstatement hostility or retaliation. Material magnitude. The difference concerns approximately $10,667 in salary exposure per month, apart from benefits and possible front pay. Likelihood. A rational employer facing strong liability evidence and an uncapped continuing wage remedy would make an unconditional offer while separately negotiating settlement. No safe neutralization by ordinary verification. Rejecting B’s unsupported hostility prediction does not supply the omitted reinstatement terms or mitigation analysis; the reader would have to reconstruct A’s strategy.", "short_basis": "Answer A recommends an immediate, unconditional reinstatement offer with Dana’s requested accommodation, while Answer B advises against reinstatement based on unsupported predictions of future hostility.", "answer_a_was": "claude-opus-5", "answer_b_was": "Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_a_display": "Claude Opus 5", "answer_b_display": "Qwen 3.5 27B", "winner": "claude-opus-5", "verdict_code": "A", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-1/verdicts/q02__Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__vs__claude-opus-5.json" } }, "rejected_points": { "qwen38": 4, "deepseek": 4, "claude": 9, "qwen35": 3 }, "delivery_filter_matter": false }, { "qid": "q03", "number": 3, "series": "Series 1", "title": "The Autonomous Forklift Accident", "category": "Product liability", "matter_page": "matters/q03/index.html", "question_file": "evidence/series-1/questions/q03.md", "key_file": "evidence/series-1/keys/q03.md", "answers": { "deepseek": "evidence/series-1/answers/DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS/DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS__q03_r1.md", "claude": "evidence/series-1/answers/claude-opus-5/claude-opus-5__q03_r1.md", "qwen35": "evidence/series-1/answers/Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL/Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__q03_r1.md", "qwen38": "evidence/series-1/answers/Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL/Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__q03_r1.md" }, "reasoning": { "deepseek": "evidence/series-1/answers/DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS/DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS__q03_r1.reasoning.md", "claude": "evidence/series-1/answers/claude-opus-5/claude-opus-5__q03_r1.reasoning.md", "qwen35": "evidence/series-1/answers/Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL/Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__q03_r1.reasoning.md", "qwen38": "evidence/series-1/answers/Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL/Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__q03_r1.reasoning.md" }, "pairings": { "qwen38-claude": { "key": "qwen38-claude", "label": "Qwen 3.8 vs Claude", "first": "qwen38", "second": "claude", "status": "tie", "result": "Functional tie", "short_result": "Tie", "basis": "Both answers place VectorMotion on the same material path: treat design and post-sale-warning exposure as substantial, reject superseding causation as the primary defense, pursue an early global settlement with SafePath participation, preserve contractual claims, and implement immediate fleet-safety measures. Their differences in allocation estimates, evidentiary tactics, and engineering emphasis do not demonstrate a different concrete outcome on the supplied record.", "short_basis": "Both answers place VectorMotion on the same material path: treat design and post-sale-warning exposure as substantial, reject superseding causation as the primary defense, pursue an early global settlement with SafePath participation, preserve contractual claims, and implement immediate fleet-safety…", "answer_a_was": "Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_b_was": "claude-opus-5", "answer_a_display": "Qwen 3.8 27B", "answer_b_display": "Claude Opus 5", "winner": "TIE", "verdict_code": "TIE", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-1/verdicts/q03__Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__vs__claude-opus-5.json" }, "qwen38-deepseek": { "key": "qwen38-deepseek", "label": "Qwen 3.8 vs DeepSeek", "first": "qwen38", "second": "deepseek", "status": "tie", "result": "Functional tie", "short_result": "Tie", "basis": "Both answers place VectorMotion on the same material path: pursue a global settlement, shift fault toward SafePath, Delta, and Luis, preserve contractual claims and evidence, limit use of the subsequent design change, oppose an adverse inference, and implement immediate fleet-safety measures. Their differing claim-strength labels and fault percentages do not establish a materially different safe action or outcome because the record lacks damages, expert causation evidence, contract terms, and judgment-allocation rules needed to price the case precisely.", "short_basis": "Both answers place VectorMotion on the same material path: pursue a global settlement, shift fault toward SafePath, Delta, and Luis, preserve contractual claims and evidence, limit use of the subsequent design change, oppose an adverse inference, and implement immediate fleet-safety measures.", "answer_a_was": "Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_b_was": "DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS", "answer_a_display": "Qwen 3.8 27B", "answer_b_display": "DeepSeek V4-Flash-0731", "winner": "TIE", "verdict_code": "TIE", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-1/verdicts/q03__DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS__vs__Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL.json" }, "qwen38-qwen35": { "key": "qwen38-qwen35", "label": "Qwen 3.8 vs Qwen 3.5", "first": "qwen38", "second": "qwen35", "status": "local", "result": "Qwen 3.8 win", "short_result": "Qwen 3.8 win", "basis": "Both answers recommend a global settlement, fault-shifting toward SafePath and Delta, and an immediate four-mile-per-hour restriction. Answer A alone expressly recommends implementing the higher confidence threshold that the record says would substantially reduce reflective-worker misclassification; Answer B leaves that known failure mode inadequately addressed despite recommending other corrective measures.", "short_basis": "Both answers recommend a global settlement, fault-shifting toward SafePath and Delta, and an immediate four-mile-per-hour restriction. Answer A alone expressly recommends implementing the higher confidence threshold that the record says would substantially reduce reflective-worker misclassification; Answer…", "answer_a_was": "Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_b_was": "Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_a_display": "Qwen 3.8 27B", "answer_b_display": "Qwen 3.5 27B", "winner": "Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "verdict_code": "A", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-1/verdicts/q03__Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__vs__Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL.json" }, "deepseek-claude": { "key": "deepseek-claude", "label": "DeepSeek vs Claude", "first": "deepseek", "second": "claude", "status": "tie", "result": "Functional tie", "short_result": "Tie", "basis": "Both answers place VectorMotion on the same material path: treat design-defect and negligence exposure as substantial, reject superseding causation, allocate meaningful fault to Delta, SafePath, and Luis, pursue a global settlement and SafePath recovery, preserve evidence, limit use of the post-accident change, and implement fleet-wide safety measures. Their differences do not establish a concrete change in the client’s legal, financial, or safety position.", "short_basis": "Both answers place VectorMotion on the same material path: treat design-defect and negligence exposure as substantial, reject superseding causation, allocate meaningful fault to Delta, SafePath, and Luis, pursue a global settlement and SafePath recovery, preserve evidence, limit use of the post-accident…", "answer_a_was": "claude-opus-5", "answer_b_was": "DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS", "answer_a_display": "Claude Opus 5", "answer_b_display": "DeepSeek V4-Flash-0731", "winner": "TIE", "verdict_code": "TIE", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-1/verdicts/q03__DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS__vs__claude-opus-5.json" }, "deepseek-qwen35": { "key": "deepseek-qwen35", "label": "DeepSeek vs Qwen 3.5", "first": "deepseek", "second": "qwen35", "status": "tie", "result": "Functional tie", "short_result": "Tie", "basis": "Both answers place VectorMotion on the same material path: treat design-defect and post-sale-warning exposure as substantial, allocate foreseeable fault to SafePath, Delta, and Luis, seek a global settlement while preserving trial defenses and contractual claims, and implement fleet-wide safety measures. After rejecting unsupported factual assertions in Answer B, neither answer demonstrates a materially different safe legal, settlement, or operational outcome.", "short_basis": "Both answers place VectorMotion on the same material path: treat design-defect and post-sale-warning exposure as substantial, allocate foreseeable fault to SafePath, Delta, and Luis, seek a global settlement while preserving trial defenses and contractual claims, and implement fleet-wide safety measures.", "answer_a_was": "DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS", "answer_b_was": "Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_a_display": "DeepSeek V4-Flash-0731", "answer_b_display": "Qwen 3.5 27B", "winner": "TIE", "verdict_code": "TIE", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-1/verdicts/q03__DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS__vs__Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL.json" }, "qwen35-claude": { "key": "qwen35-claude", "label": "Qwen 3.5 vs Claude", "first": "qwen35", "second": "claude", "status": "tie", "result": "Functional tie", "short_result": "Tie", "basis": "Both answers place VectorMotion on the same material path: pursue an early global settlement, allocate fault to Delta, SafePath, and Luis, preserve contractual claims against SafePath, seek exclusion of the post-accident change, address the deleted data without conceding intent, and implement fleet-wide safety measures and direct warnings. Their differing assessments and tactical detail do not establish a record-supported change in settlement outcome, evidentiary ruling, preserved claim, or client exposure.", "short_basis": "Both answers place VectorMotion on the same material path: pursue an early global settlement, allocate fault to Delta, SafePath, and Luis, preserve contractual claims against SafePath, seek exclusion of the post-accident change, address the deleted data without conceding intent, and implement fleet-wide…", "answer_a_was": "Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_b_was": "claude-opus-5", "answer_a_display": "Qwen 3.5 27B", "answer_b_display": "Claude Opus 5", "winner": "TIE", "verdict_code": "TIE", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-1/verdicts/q03__Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__vs__claude-opus-5.json" } }, "rejected_points": { "qwen38": 1, "deepseek": 3, "claude": 10, "qwen35": 14 }, "delivery_filter_matter": false }, { "qid": "q04", "number": 4, "series": "Series 1", "title": "The SUV, the Backpack, and the Phone", "category": "Criminal procedure", "matter_page": "matters/q04/index.html", "question_file": "evidence/series-1/questions/q04.md", "key_file": "evidence/series-1/keys/q04.md", "answers": { "deepseek": "evidence/series-1/answers/DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS/DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS__q04_r1.md", "claude": "evidence/series-1/answers/claude-opus-5/claude-opus-5__q04_r1.md", "qwen35": "evidence/series-1/answers/Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL/Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__q04_r1.md", "qwen38": "evidence/series-1/answers/Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL/Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__q04_r1.md" }, "reasoning": { "deepseek": "evidence/series-1/answers/DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS/DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS__q04_r1.reasoning.md", "claude": "evidence/series-1/answers/claude-opus-5/claude-opus-5__q04_r1.reasoning.md", "qwen35": "evidence/series-1/answers/Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL/Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__q04_r1.reasoning.md", "qwen38": "evidence/series-1/answers/Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL/Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__q04_r1.reasoning.md" }, "pairings": { "qwen38-claude": { "key": "qwen38-claude", "label": "Qwen 3.8 vs Claude", "first": "qwen38", "second": "claude", "status": "tie", "result": "Functional tie", "short_result": "Tie", "basis": "Both readers would litigate the stop’s prolongation and derivative taint, the backpack search, the warrantless phone review and later warrant, the out-of-scope photographs, and the two-stage interrogation. Although Answer B overstates the medication’s likely admissibility, it still directs counsel to challenge the consent as fruit of the prolonged detention, leaving the client on the same preserved and materially safe litigation path.", "short_basis": "Both readers would litigate the stop’s prolongation and derivative taint, the backpack search, the warrantless phone review and later warrant, the out-of-scope photographs, and the two-stage interrogation.", "answer_a_was": "claude-opus-5", "answer_b_was": "Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_a_display": "Claude Opus 5", "answer_b_display": "Qwen 3.8 27B", "winner": "TIE", "verdict_code": "TIE", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-1/verdicts/q04__Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__vs__claude-opus-5.json" }, "qwen38-deepseek": { "key": "qwen38-deepseek", "label": "Qwen 3.8 vs DeepSeek", "first": "qwen38", "second": "deepseek", "status": "tie", "result": "Functional tie", "short_result": "Tie", "basis": "Both answers direct the defense to litigate the unlawful prolongation and resulting consent, dog-alert, vehicle, and backpack searches, while also challenging the warrantless phone review, later warrant, warrant scope, and interrogation. Although they predict different outcomes for the medication and jacket, both preserve the same suppression arguments and advise the prosecution to defend the same evidence; the record does not demonstrate that their differing predictions produce a concrete different result for either client.", "short_basis": "Both answers direct the defense to litigate the unlawful prolongation and resulting consent, dog-alert, vehicle, and backpack searches, while also challenging the warrantless phone review, later warrant, warrant scope, and interrogation.", "answer_a_was": "Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_b_was": "DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS", "answer_a_display": "Qwen 3.8 27B", "answer_b_display": "DeepSeek V4-Flash-0731", "winner": "TIE", "verdict_code": "TIE", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-1/verdicts/q04__DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS__vs__Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL.json" }, "qwen38-qwen35": { "key": "qwen38-qwen35", "label": "Qwen 3.8 vs Qwen 3.5", "first": "qwen38", "second": "qwen35", "status": "tie", "result": "Functional tie", "short_result": "Tie", "basis": "Both answers direct the parties to litigate the prolongation, backpack, phone, warrant-scope, and Miranda issues, with the gun, phone evidence, unrelated photographs, and statements as the principal suppression targets. Both preserve a challenge to the medication through the prolongation and consent arguments and recommend negotiating around the remaining independent robbery evidence; their differing predictions do not demonstrate a different filing, lost claim, or concrete plea outcome.", "short_basis": "Both answers direct the parties to litigate the prolongation, backpack, phone, warrant-scope, and Miranda issues, with the gun, phone evidence, unrelated photographs, and statements as the principal suppression targets.", "answer_a_was": "Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_b_was": "Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_a_display": "Qwen 3.5 27B", "answer_b_display": "Qwen 3.8 27B", "winner": "TIE", "verdict_code": "TIE", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-1/verdicts/q04__Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__vs__Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL.json" }, "deepseek-claude": { "key": "deepseek-claude", "label": "DeepSeek vs Claude", "first": "deepseek", "second": "claude", "status": "tie", "result": "Functional tie", "short_result": "Tie", "basis": "Both answers place the parties on the same material path: uphold the initial stop as probable, litigate prolongation as the central issue, challenge the vehicle and backpack searches as derivative, suppress the warrantless phone review and out-of-scope photographs, and attack the statements under Miranda’s question-first rule. Both likewise recognize that the viable charges and plea leverage turn principally on the prolongation ruling, with no demonstrated difference in ultimate client outcome.", "short_basis": "Both answers place the parties on the same material path: uphold the initial stop as probable, litigate prolongation as the central issue, challenge the vehicle and backpack searches as derivative, suppress the warrantless phone review and out-of-scope photographs, and attack the statements under Miranda’s…", "answer_a_was": "claude-opus-5", "answer_b_was": "DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS", "answer_a_display": "Claude Opus 5", "answer_b_display": "DeepSeek V4-Flash-0731", "winner": "TIE", "verdict_code": "TIE", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-1/verdicts/q04__DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS__vs__claude-opus-5.json" }, "deepseek-qwen35": { "key": "deepseek-qwen35", "label": "DeepSeek vs Qwen 3.5", "first": "deepseek", "second": "qwen35", "status": "tie", "result": "Functional tie", "short_result": "Tie", "basis": "Both answers direct the defense to challenge the prolongation, vehicle and backpack searches, phone searches, warrant, and interrogations, while preserving the prosecution’s reasonable-suspicion, consent, dog-alert, independent-evidence, and waiver arguments. Their different weighting of the initial stop, dog reliability, standing, and plea posture does not establish different material conduct or outcomes; both place the parties on the same litigation and negotiation path.", "short_basis": "Both answers direct the defense to challenge the prolongation, vehicle and backpack searches, phone searches, warrant, and interrogations, while preserving the prosecution’s reasonable-suspicion, consent, dog-alert, independent-evidence, and waiver arguments.", "answer_a_was": "Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_b_was": "DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS", "answer_a_display": "Qwen 3.5 27B", "answer_b_display": "DeepSeek V4-Flash-0731", "winner": "TIE", "verdict_code": "TIE", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-1/verdicts/q04__DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS__vs__Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL.json" }, "qwen35-claude": { "key": "qwen35-claude", "label": "Qwen 3.5 vs Claude", "first": "qwen35", "second": "claude", "status": "frontier", "result": "Claude win", "short_result": "Claude win", "basis": "Answer B correctly distinguishes suppression of the backpack search as to the passenger from suppression as to the driver: if prolongation was lawful, the passenger’s exclusive ownership defeats consent only for her, while the gun remains usable against the driver through the dog-alert probable-cause theory. Answer A instead treats lack of authority over the backpack as supporting suppression against both defendants, risking abandonment or mispricing of material firearm evidence against the driver.", "short_basis": "Answer B correctly distinguishes suppression of the backpack search as to the passenger from suppression as to the driver: if prolongation was lawful, the passenger’s exclusive ownership defeats consent only for her, while the gun remains usable against the driver through the dog-alert probable-cause theory.", "answer_a_was": "Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_b_was": "claude-opus-5", "answer_a_display": "Qwen 3.5 27B", "answer_b_display": "Claude Opus 5", "winner": "claude-opus-5", "verdict_code": "B", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-1/verdicts/q04__Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__vs__claude-opus-5.json" } }, "rejected_points": { "qwen38": 3, "deepseek": 3, "claude": 0, "qwen35": 7 }, "delivery_filter_matter": false }, { "qid": "q05", "number": 5, "series": "Series 1", "title": "The Founder’s Acquisition", "category": "Corporate transactions", "matter_page": "matters/q05/index.html", "question_file": "evidence/series-1/questions/q05.md", "key_file": "evidence/series-1/keys/q05.md", "answers": { "deepseek": "evidence/series-1/answers/DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS/DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS__q05_r1.md", "claude": "evidence/series-1/answers/claude-opus-5/claude-opus-5__q05_r1.md", "qwen35": "evidence/series-1/answers/Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL/Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__q05_r1.md", "qwen38": "evidence/series-1/answers/Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL/Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__q05_r1.md" }, "reasoning": { "deepseek": "evidence/series-1/answers/DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS/DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS__q05_r1.reasoning.md", "claude": "evidence/series-1/answers/claude-opus-5/claude-opus-5__q05_r1.reasoning.md", "qwen35": "evidence/series-1/answers/Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL/Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__q05_r1.reasoning.md", "qwen38": "evidence/series-1/answers/Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL/Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__q05_r1.reasoning.md" }, "pairings": { "qwen38-claude": { "key": "qwen38-claude", "label": "Qwen 3.8 vs Claude", "first": "qwen38", "second": "claude", "status": "tie", "result": "Functional tie", "short_result": "Tie", "basis": "Both answers place the board on the same material path: assume entire-fairness review, preserve evidence, establish a genuinely independent litigation process with separate advisers, obtain an independent valuation, preserve claims against Peak, and evaluate settlement only after investigation. Their differences do not establish a record-supported change in the client’s ultimate legal, financial, or procedural position.", "short_basis": "Both answers place the board on the same material path: assume entire-fairness review, preserve evidence, establish a genuinely independent litigation process with separate advisers, obtain an independent valuation, preserve claims against Peak, and evaluate settlement only after investigation.", "answer_a_was": "Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_b_was": "claude-opus-5", "answer_a_display": "Qwen 3.8 27B", "answer_b_display": "Claude Opus 5", "winner": "TIE", "verdict_code": "TIE", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-1/verdicts/q05__Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__vs__claude-opus-5.json" }, "qwen38-deepseek": { "key": "qwen38-deepseek", "label": "Qwen 3.8 vs DeepSeek", "first": "qwen38", "second": "deepseek", "status": "tie", "result": "Functional tie", "short_result": "Tie", "basis": "Both answers place the board on the same material path: assume entire-fairness review, expect core loyalty and disclosure claims to survive, rely on exculpation only for care-based director claims, and delegate investigation and litigation decisions to an independent committee before deciding whether to settle or pursue Peak. Both also recommend preservation, independent valuation, insurance review, and prospective governance reforms.", "short_basis": "Both answers place the board on the same material path: assume entire-fairness review, expect core loyalty and disclosure claims to survive, rely on exculpation only for care-based director claims, and delegate investigation and litigation decisions to an independent committee before deciding whether to…", "answer_a_was": "Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_b_was": "DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS", "answer_a_display": "Qwen 3.8 27B", "answer_b_display": "DeepSeek V4-Flash-0731", "winner": "TIE", "verdict_code": "TIE", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-1/verdicts/q05__DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS__vs__Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL.json" }, "qwen38-qwen35": { "key": "qwen38-qwen35", "label": "Qwen 3.8 vs Qwen 3.5", "first": "qwen38", "second": "qwen35", "status": "tie", "result": "Functional tie", "short_result": "Tie", "basis": "Both answers direct the board toward entire-fairness litigation, an independent litigation committee and counsel, investigation of the omissions and valuation, preservation of claims against Peak, insurance review, and serious settlement consideration. Their differences in certainty, sequencing, and exposure estimates do not establish a materially different client outcome.", "short_basis": "Both answers direct the board toward entire-fairness litigation, an independent litigation committee and counsel, investigation of the omissions and valuation, preservation of claims against Peak, insurance review, and serious settlement consideration.", "answer_a_was": "Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_b_was": "Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_a_display": "Qwen 3.5 27B", "answer_b_display": "Qwen 3.8 27B", "winner": "TIE", "verdict_code": "TIE", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-1/verdicts/q05__Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__vs__Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL.json" }, "deepseek-claude": { "key": "deepseek-claude", "label": "DeepSeek vs Claude", "first": "deepseek", "second": "claude", "status": "tie", "result": "Functional tie", "short_result": "Tie", "basis": "Both answers place the board on the same material path: assume entire-fairness review, preserve evidence, establish an independent litigation process, investigate claims against Elena and Peak, rely selectively on exculpation and fair-price defenses, and defer settlement until the investigation develops the record. Their differing predictions and additional theories do not establish a record-supported change in client outcome.", "short_basis": "Both answers place the board on the same material path: assume entire-fairness review, preserve evidence, establish an independent litigation process, investigate claims against Elena and Peak, rely selectively on exculpation and fair-price defenses, and defer settlement until the investigation develops the…", "answer_a_was": "DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS", "answer_b_was": "claude-opus-5", "answer_a_display": "DeepSeek V4-Flash-0731", "answer_b_display": "Claude Opus 5", "winner": "TIE", "verdict_code": "TIE", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-1/verdicts/q05__DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS__vs__claude-opus-5.json" }, "deepseek-qwen35": { "key": "deepseek-qwen35", "label": "DeepSeek vs Qwen 3.5", "first": "deepseek", "second": "qwen35", "status": "tie", "result": "Functional tie", "short_result": "Tie", "basis": "Both readers would assume entire-fairness review, expect core claims against Elena and potentially Peak to survive dismissal, form an independent litigation committee, preserve evidence and claims, and evaluate settlement after an independent investigation. Their disagreement over when to begin settlement discussions does not establish any particular settlement, release, recovery, or other concrete client consequence.", "short_basis": "Both readers would assume entire-fairness review, expect core claims against Elena and potentially Peak to survive dismissal, form an independent litigation committee, preserve evidence and claims, and evaluate settlement after an independent investigation.", "answer_a_was": "Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_b_was": "DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS", "answer_a_display": "Qwen 3.5 27B", "answer_b_display": "DeepSeek V4-Flash-0731", "winner": "TIE", "verdict_code": "TIE", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-1/verdicts/q05__DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS__vs__Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL.json" }, "qwen35-claude": { "key": "qwen35-claude", "label": "Qwen 3.5 vs Claude", "first": "qwen35", "second": "claude", "status": "tie", "result": "Functional tie", "short_result": "Tie", "basis": "Both answers put the board on the same material path: expect entire-fairness review, preserve exculpation defenses, establish an independent litigation body, investigate Elena and Peak, pursue third-party recovery, evaluate settlement, and implement prospective governance reforms. Their differences in timing, liability allocation, and tactical emphasis do not establish a directionally better client outcome on the supplied record.", "short_basis": "Both answers put the board on the same material path: expect entire-fairness review, preserve exculpation defenses, establish an independent litigation body, investigate Elena and Peak, pursue third-party recovery, evaluate settlement, and implement prospective governance reforms.", "answer_a_was": "Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_b_was": "claude-opus-5", "answer_a_display": "Qwen 3.5 27B", "answer_b_display": "Claude Opus 5", "winner": "TIE", "verdict_code": "TIE", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-1/verdicts/q05__Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__vs__claude-opus-5.json" } }, "rejected_points": { "qwen38": 3, "deepseek": 8, "claude": 12, "qwen35": 7 }, "delivery_filter_matter": false }, { "qid": "q06", "number": 6, "series": "Series 1", "title": "The Departing AI Product Director", "category": "Trade secrets", "matter_page": "matters/q06/index.html", "question_file": "evidence/series-1/questions/q06.md", "key_file": "evidence/series-1/keys/q06.md", "answers": { "deepseek": "evidence/series-1/answers/DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS/DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS__q06_r1.md", "claude": "evidence/series-1/answers/claude-opus-5/claude-opus-5__q06_r1.md", "qwen35": "evidence/series-1/answers/Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL/Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__q06_r1.md", "qwen38": "evidence/series-1/answers/Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL/Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__q06_r1.md" }, "reasoning": { "deepseek": "evidence/series-1/answers/DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS/DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS__q06_r1.reasoning.md", "qwen35": "evidence/series-1/answers/Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL/Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__q06_r1.reasoning.md", "qwen38": "evidence/series-1/answers/Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL/Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__q06_r1.reasoning.md" }, "pairings": { "qwen38-claude": { "key": "qwen38-claude", "label": "Qwen 3.8 vs Claude", "first": "qwen38", "second": "claude", "status": "tie", "result": "Functional tie", "short_result": "Tie", "basis": "Both answers direct LexCore away from the requested noncompete-like restraint, feature-wide injunction, wholesale imaging, and blanket customer ban, and toward prompt preservation, identified-secret protections, targeted forensics and discovery, and enforcement limited to material-contact customers. Their differences in TRO sequencing and temporary product-role restrictions do not establish a concrete, record-supported difference in client outcome.", "short_basis": "Both answers direct LexCore away from the requested noncompete-like restraint, feature-wide injunction, wholesale imaging, and blanket customer ban, and toward prompt preservation, identified-secret protections, targeted forensics and discovery, and enforcement limited to material-contact customers.", "answer_a_was": "Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_b_was": "claude-opus-5", "answer_a_display": "Qwen 3.8 27B", "answer_b_display": "Claude Opus 5", "winner": "TIE", "verdict_code": "TIE", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-1/verdicts/q06__Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__vs__claude-opus-5.json" }, "qwen38-deepseek": { "key": "qwen38-deepseek", "label": "Qwen 3.8 vs DeepSeek", "first": "qwen38", "second": "deepseek", "status": "tie", "result": "Functional tie", "short_result": "Tie", "basis": "Both answers direct LexCore toward the same material course: an immediate narrow TRO focused on preservation, identified trade secrets, material-contact customer solicitation, targeted forensics, and expedited discovery, while abandoning the employment ban, blanket feature injunction, broad imaging, and all-customer restriction. Their differences do not establish a different concrete outcome after ordinary verification.", "short_basis": "Both answers direct LexCore toward the same material course: an immediate narrow TRO focused on preservation, identified trade secrets, material-contact customer solicitation, targeted forensics, and expedited discovery, while abandoning the employment ban, blanket feature injunction, broad imaging, and…", "answer_a_was": "DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS", "answer_b_was": "Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_a_display": "DeepSeek V4-Flash-0731", "answer_b_display": "Qwen 3.8 27B", "winner": "TIE", "verdict_code": "TIE", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-1/verdicts/q06__DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS__vs__Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL.json" }, "qwen38-qwen35": { "key": "qwen38-qwen35", "label": "Qwen 3.8 vs Qwen 3.5", "first": "qwen38", "second": "qwen35", "status": "tie", "result": "Functional tie", "short_result": "Tie", "basis": "Both answers direct LexCore toward the same material path: an immediate, narrow application protecting specifically identified secrets, preserving evidence, restricting solicitation only of material-contact customers, using targeted neutral forensics and expedited discovery, and abandoning the employment ban, blanket feature injunction, full-system imaging, and all-customer restriction. Their differences do not establish a materially different, safer outcome for LexCore.", "short_basis": "Both answers direct LexCore toward the same material path: an immediate, narrow application protecting specifically identified secrets, preserving evidence, restricting solicitation only of material-contact customers, using targeted neutral forensics and expedited discovery, and abandoning the employment…", "answer_a_was": "Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_b_was": "Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_a_display": "Qwen 3.5 27B", "answer_b_display": "Qwen 3.8 27B", "winner": "TIE", "verdict_code": "TIE", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-1/verdicts/q06__Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__vs__Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL.json" }, "deepseek-claude": { "key": "deepseek-claude", "label": "DeepSeek vs Claude", "first": "deepseek", "second": "claude", "status": "tie", "result": "Functional tie", "short_result": "Tie", "basis": "Both answers direct LexCore away from the requested employment ban, feature injunction, blanket customer restriction, and wholesale system imaging, and toward preservation, narrowly defined non-use and non-solicitation relief, targeted neutral forensics, and expedited discovery. Their principal difference—filing a narrow TRO immediately versus first seeking a brief negotiated standstill—does not establish a record-supported difference in client outcome because Evidentia’s response and any effect of that sequencing are unknown.", "short_basis": "Both answers direct LexCore away from the requested employment ban, feature injunction, blanket customer restriction, and wholesale system imaging, and toward preservation, narrowly defined non-use and non-solicitation relief, targeted neutral forensics, and expedited discovery.", "answer_a_was": "DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS", "answer_b_was": "claude-opus-5", "answer_a_display": "DeepSeek V4-Flash-0731", "answer_b_display": "Claude Opus 5", "winner": "TIE", "verdict_code": "TIE", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-1/verdicts/q06__DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS__vs__claude-opus-5.json" }, "deepseek-qwen35": { "key": "deepseek-qwen35", "label": "DeepSeek vs Qwen 3.5", "first": "deepseek", "second": "qwen35", "status": "local", "result": "DeepSeek win", "short_result": "DeepSeek win", "basis": "Answer A recommends immediate preservation of all relevant Evidentia development records, repositories, communications, and logs, followed by a neutral, targeted examination of Adrian’s work device and relevant corporate systems. Answer B limits immediate preservation and forensic relief principally to Adrian’s personal devices, leaving the corporate evidence most likely to show use or independent development exposed to deletion or routine overwriting despite Adrian’s demonstrated destruction of evidence.", "short_basis": "Answer A recommends immediate preservation of all relevant Evidentia development records, repositories, communications, and logs, followed by a neutral, targeted examination of Adrian’s work device and relevant corporate systems.", "answer_a_was": "DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS", "answer_b_was": "Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_a_display": "DeepSeek V4-Flash-0731", "answer_b_display": "Qwen 3.5 27B", "winner": "DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS", "verdict_code": "A", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-1/verdicts/q06__DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS__vs__Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL.json" }, "qwen35-claude": { "key": "qwen35-claude", "label": "Qwen 3.5 vs Claude", "first": "qwen35", "second": "claude", "status": "tie", "result": "Functional tie", "short_result": "Tie", "basis": "Both answers place LexCore on the same material path: reject the requested employment ban, feature injunction, wholesale system imaging, and blanket customer restriction; preserve evidence; seek narrowly tailored use, disclosure, solicitation, and forensic relief; and pursue expedited discovery. Their different sequencing and characterization of disputed facts do not establish a concrete difference in LexCore’s legal, evidentiary, or strategic position.", "short_basis": "Both answers place LexCore on the same material path: reject the requested employment ban, feature injunction, wholesale system imaging, and blanket customer restriction; preserve evidence; seek narrowly tailored use, disclosure, solicitation, and forensic relief; and pursue expedited discovery.", "answer_a_was": "claude-opus-5", "answer_b_was": "Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_a_display": "Claude Opus 5", "answer_b_display": "Qwen 3.5 27B", "winner": "TIE", "verdict_code": "TIE", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-1/verdicts/q06__Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__vs__claude-opus-5.json" } }, "rejected_points": { "qwen38": 1, "deepseek": 6, "claude": 9, "qwen35": 9 }, "delivery_filter_matter": false }, { "qid": "q07", "number": 7, "series": "Series 1", "title": "The Altered Board Minutes", "category": "Professional responsibility", "matter_page": "matters/q07/index.html", "question_file": "evidence/series-1/questions/q07.md", "key_file": "evidence/series-1/keys/q07.md", "answers": { "deepseek": "evidence/series-1/answers/DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS/DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS__q07_r1.md", "claude": "evidence/series-1/answers/claude-opus-5/claude-opus-5__q07_r1.md", "qwen35": "evidence/series-1/answers/Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL/Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__q07_r1.md", "qwen38": "evidence/series-1/answers/Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL/Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__q07_r1.md" }, "reasoning": { "deepseek": "evidence/series-1/answers/DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS/DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS__q07_r1.reasoning.md", "claude": "evidence/series-1/answers/claude-opus-5/claude-opus-5__q07_r1.reasoning.md", "qwen35": "evidence/series-1/answers/Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL/Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__q07_r1.reasoning.md", "qwen38": "evidence/series-1/answers/Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL/Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__q07_r1.reasoning.md" }, "pairings": { "qwen38-claude": { "key": "qwen38-claude", "label": "Qwen 3.8 vs Claude", "first": "qwen38", "second": "claude", "status": "tie", "result": "Functional tie", "short_result": "Tie", "basis": "Both answers end the joint representation, preserve all evidence, correct the government’s false understanding before the deadline, truthfully produce the altered draft and metadata, decline Nora’s immunity request, and transition Samuel, Nora, and the adverse internal investigation to independent counsel. Both restrict any continuing Ardent role to emergency correction, preservation, and subpoena work without using individual confidences adversely; no concrete client consequence from their remaining differences is established.", "short_basis": "Both answers end the joint representation, preserve all evidence, correct the government’s false understanding before the deadline, truthfully produce the altered draft and metadata, decline Nora’s immunity request, and transition Samuel, Nora, and the adverse internal investigation to independent counsel.", "answer_a_was": "claude-opus-5", "answer_b_was": "Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_a_display": "Claude Opus 5", "answer_b_display": "Qwen 3.8 27B", "winner": "TIE", "verdict_code": "TIE", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-1/verdicts/q07__Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__vs__claude-opus-5.json" }, "qwen38-deepseek": { "key": "qwen38-deepseek", "label": "Qwen 3.8 vs DeepSeek", "first": "qwen38", "second": "deepseek", "status": "tie", "result": "Functional tie", "short_result": "Tie", "basis": "Both answers require immediate preservation, correction of the government presentation, truthful treatment of the altered draft and metadata, termination of the joint representation, independent counsel for Samuel and Nora, and protection against misuse of individual confidences. Their principal difference—limited continued representation of Ardent versus withdrawal from Ardent—does not produce a concrete, record-supported difference in the subpoena response or client outcome because both preserve correction and transition duties.", "short_basis": "Both answers require immediate preservation, correction of the government presentation, truthful treatment of the altered draft and metadata, termination of the joint representation, independent counsel for Samuel and Nora, and protection against misuse of individual confidences.", "answer_a_was": "Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_b_was": "DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS", "answer_a_display": "Qwen 3.8 27B", "answer_b_display": "DeepSeek V4-Flash-0731", "winner": "TIE", "verdict_code": "TIE", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-1/verdicts/q07__DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS__vs__Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL.json" }, "qwen38-qwen35": { "key": "qwen38-qwen35", "label": "Qwen 3.8 vs Qwen 3.5", "first": "qwen38", "second": "qwen35", "status": "local", "result": "Qwen 3.8 win", "short_result": "Qwen 3.8 win", "basis": "Answer A limits any continued Ardent representation to correction, preservation, and a truthful subpoena response, while prohibiting use of Samuel’s separate confidential statement to pursue Ardent’s claims against him. Answer B expressly permits the firm to use that admission to prove fraud for Ardent, exposing Samuel to increased liability through information obtained during the joint representation beyond what is necessary to remedy the prior false presentation. Exact difference: B states that the firm “can use information relevant to the defense of Ardent (e.g., proving fraud occurred)”; A prohibits using Samuel’s separate statement against him beyond required remediation. Different conduct: Under A, a clean team corrects the document’s provenance through metadata and nonprivileged evidence and declines claims work using Samuel’s statement; under B, the lead partner may deploy that statement for Ardent. Concrete consequence: Samuel’s confidential admission is disclosed or used to establish his fraud, increasing his legal exposure and compromising confidentiality or privilege beyond the necessary correction. Record support: Samuel made the statement privately; separate individual communications may remain confidential; Ardent cannot waive an individual’s privilege; disclosure is limited to what is reasonably necessary. Material magnitude: Use of an admission to prove fraud materially affects Samuel’s criminal, civil, and evidentiary position. Likelihood: B directly authorizes the use and continues the firm for Ardent while Ardent is evaluating claims against Samuel. No safe neutralization by ordinary verification: Removing B’s authorization still leaves the reader to devise limits, staffing, and withdrawal boundaries that B did not supply consistently.", "short_basis": "Answer A limits any continued Ardent representation to correction, preservation, and a truthful subpoena response, while prohibiting use of Samuel’s separate confidential statement to pursue Ardent’s claims against him.", "answer_a_was": "Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_b_was": "Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_a_display": "Qwen 3.8 27B", "answer_b_display": "Qwen 3.5 27B", "winner": "Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "verdict_code": "A", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-1/verdicts/q07__Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__vs__Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL.json" }, "deepseek-claude": { "key": "deepseek-claude", "label": "DeepSeek vs Claude", "first": "deepseek", "second": "claude", "status": "tie", "result": "Functional tie", "short_result": "Tie", "basis": "Both readers preserve all evidence, stop use of the altered minutes, narrowly correct the government presentation, decline Nora’s immunity request, withdraw from conflicted substantive representations, protect individual confidences beyond necessary remediation, and transition the subpoena response to independent counsel. Their differences in sequencing, residual transitional work, privilege characterization, and forensic detail do not establish a different material outcome.", "short_basis": "Both readers preserve all evidence, stop use of the altered minutes, narrowly correct the government presentation, decline Nora’s immunity request, withdraw from conflicted substantive representations, protect individual confidences beyond necessary remediation, and transition the subpoena response to…", "answer_a_was": "DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS", "answer_b_was": "claude-opus-5", "answer_a_display": "DeepSeek V4-Flash-0731", "answer_b_display": "Claude Opus 5", "winner": "TIE", "verdict_code": "TIE", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-1/verdicts/q07__DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS__vs__claude-opus-5.json" }, "deepseek-qwen35": { "key": "deepseek-qwen35", "label": "DeepSeek vs Qwen 3.5", "first": "deepseek", "second": "qwen35", "status": "local", "result": "DeepSeek win", "short_result": "DeepSeek win", "basis": "Answer A directs the firm to continue representing Ardent and expressly permits using Samuel’s confidential admission to prove fraud, while Ardent is evaluating claims against him. Answer B instead requires firm-wide withdrawal, narrow remediation, and independent counsel, preventing the firm from turning one joint client’s potentially separate confidential communication against him beyond what correcting the government record requires.", "short_basis": "Answer A directs the firm to continue representing Ardent and expressly permits using Samuel’s confidential admission to prove fraud, while Ardent is evaluating claims against him.", "answer_a_was": "Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_b_was": "DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS", "answer_a_display": "Qwen 3.5 27B", "answer_b_display": "DeepSeek V4-Flash-0731", "winner": "DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS", "verdict_code": "B", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-1/verdicts/q07__DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS__vs__Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL.json" }, "qwen35-claude": { "key": "qwen35-claude", "label": "Qwen 3.5 vs Claude", "first": "qwen35", "second": "claude", "status": "tie", "result": "Functional tie", "short_result": "Tie", "basis": "Both answers direct withdrawal from Samuel and Nora, prompt correction of the prior false characterization without initially disclosing their admissions, preservation of all versions and metadata, and a qualified subpoena production. Their differences do not establish that a competent professional would place any client on a materially different legal, evidentiary, or procedural path.", "short_basis": "Both answers direct withdrawal from Samuel and Nora, prompt correction of the prior false characterization without initially disclosing their admissions, preservation of all versions and metadata, and a qualified subpoena production.", "answer_a_was": "claude-opus-5", "answer_b_was": "Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_a_display": "Claude Opus 5", "answer_b_display": "Qwen 3.5 27B", "winner": "TIE", "verdict_code": "TIE", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-1/verdicts/q07__Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__vs__claude-opus-5.json" } }, "rejected_points": { "qwen38": 1, "deepseek": 2, "claude": 3, "qwen35": 8 }, "delivery_filter_matter": false }, { "qid": "q08", "number": 8, "series": "Series 1", "title": "The Cloud Outage Lawsuit", "category": "Technology litigation", "matter_page": "matters/q08/index.html", "question_file": "evidence/series-1/questions/q08.md", "key_file": "evidence/series-1/keys/q08.md", "answers": { "deepseek": "evidence/series-1/answers/DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS/DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS__q08_r1.md", "claude": "evidence/series-1/answers/claude-opus-5/claude-opus-5__q08_r1.md", "qwen35": "evidence/series-1/answers/Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL/Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__q08_r1.md", "qwen38": "evidence/series-1/answers/Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL/Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__q08_r1.md" }, "reasoning": { "deepseek": "evidence/series-1/answers/DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS/DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS__q08_r1.reasoning.md", "qwen35": "evidence/series-1/answers/Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL/Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__q08_r1.reasoning.md", "qwen38": "evidence/series-1/answers/Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL/Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__q08_r1.reasoning.md" }, "pairings": { "qwen38-claude": { "key": "qwen38-claude", "label": "Qwen 3.8 vs Claude", "first": "qwen38", "second": "claude", "status": "tie", "result": "Functional tie", "short_result": "Tie", "basis": "Both answers direct BrightForge to seek remand because Leo has a reasonable fraud claim and therefore defeats complete diversity. They also preserve the same fallback path: oppose arbitration for lack of assent, defend jurisdiction over Orbit, contest transfer, prioritize fraud and consumer-protection discovery, and treat contract recovery as limited and Orbit’s negligence claim as vulnerable.", "short_basis": "Both answers direct BrightForge to seek remand because Leo has a reasonable fraud claim and therefore defeats complete diversity. They also preserve the same fallback path: oppose arbitration for lack of assent, defend jurisdiction over Orbit, contest transfer, prioritize fraud and consumer-protection…", "answer_a_was": "Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_b_was": "claude-opus-5", "answer_a_display": "Qwen 3.8 27B", "answer_b_display": "Claude Opus 5", "winner": "TIE", "verdict_code": "TIE", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-1/verdicts/q08__Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__vs__claude-opus-5.json" }, "qwen38-deepseek": { "key": "qwen38-deepseek", "label": "Qwen 3.8 vs DeepSeek", "first": "qwen38", "second": "deepseek", "status": "tie", "result": "Functional tie", "short_result": "Tie", "basis": "Both answers direct BrightForge to seek prompt remand because Leo has a reasonable fraud claim defeating fraudulent joinder and complete diversity. Both recommend the same fallback path: oppose arbitration, anticipate likely enforcement of the State C forum clause, prioritize fraud to challenge contractual limitations, and treat Orbit’s negligence claim as vulnerable under the economic-loss rule. The disputed additions do not change any demonstrated filing, litigation position, forum outcome, or recovery strategy.", "short_basis": "Both answers direct BrightForge to seek prompt remand because Leo has a reasonable fraud claim defeating fraudulent joinder and complete diversity. Both recommend the same fallback path: oppose arbitration, anticipate likely enforcement of the State C forum clause, prioritize fraud to challenge contractual…", "answer_a_was": "DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS", "answer_b_was": "Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_a_display": "DeepSeek V4-Flash-0731", "answer_b_display": "Qwen 3.8 27B", "winner": "TIE", "verdict_code": "TIE", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-1/verdicts/q08__DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS__vs__Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL.json" }, "qwen38-qwen35": { "key": "qwen38-qwen35", "label": "Qwen 3.8 vs Qwen 3.5", "first": "qwen38", "second": "qwen35", "status": "tie", "result": "Functional tie", "short_result": "Tie", "basis": "Both answers direct BrightForge to seek immediate remand because Leo’s reasonably supported fraud claim defeats fraudulent joinder and complete diversity, while preserving the same fallback positions against arbitration and for fraud-focused recovery. After ordinary verification rejects the unsupported points below, both readers remain on the same materially correct and safe litigation path.", "short_basis": "Both answers direct BrightForge to seek immediate remand because Leo’s reasonably supported fraud claim defeats fraudulent joinder and complete diversity, while preserving the same fallback positions against arbitration and for fraud-focused recovery.", "answer_a_was": "Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_b_was": "Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_a_display": "Qwen 3.8 27B", "answer_b_display": "Qwen 3.5 27B", "winner": "TIE", "verdict_code": "TIE", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-1/verdicts/q08__Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__vs__Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL.json" }, "deepseek-claude": { "key": "deepseek-claude", "label": "DeepSeek vs Claude", "first": "deepseek", "second": "claude", "status": "tie", "result": "Functional tie", "short_result": "Tie", "basis": "Both answers direct BrightForge to seek remand because Leo has a colorable fraud claim, oppose arbitration for lack of assent, preserve the fraud and consumer-protection theories, and treat contract recovery as sharply limited and Orbit’s negligence claim as vulnerable. Unsupported additions in Answer A are safely rejected without changing that materially correct path.", "short_basis": "Both answers direct BrightForge to seek remand because Leo has a colorable fraud claim, oppose arbitration for lack of assent, preserve the fraud and consumer-protection theories, and treat contract recovery as sharply limited and Orbit’s negligence claim as vulnerable.", "answer_a_was": "claude-opus-5", "answer_b_was": "DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS", "answer_a_display": "Claude Opus 5", "answer_b_display": "DeepSeek V4-Flash-0731", "winner": "TIE", "verdict_code": "TIE", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-1/verdicts/q08__DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS__vs__claude-opus-5.json" }, "deepseek-qwen35": { "key": "deepseek-qwen35", "label": "DeepSeek vs Qwen 3.5", "first": "deepseek", "second": "qwen35", "status": "tie", "result": "Functional tie", "short_result": "Tie", "basis": "Both readers would seek remand based on Leo’s viable fraud claim, oppose arbitration for lack of assent, anticipate likely enforcement of the State C forum clause, prioritize fraud over the contract-limited recovery, and treat Orbit’s negligence claim as vulnerable to the economic-loss rule. The disputed overstatements in Answer A are either directly rejected from the supplied record or do not establish a different concrete outcome.", "short_basis": "Both readers would seek remand based on Leo’s viable fraud claim, oppose arbitration for lack of assent, anticipate likely enforcement of the State C forum clause, prioritize fraud over the contract-limited recovery, and treat Orbit’s negligence claim as vulnerable to the economic-loss rule.", "answer_a_was": "Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_b_was": "DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS", "answer_a_display": "Qwen 3.5 27B", "answer_b_display": "DeepSeek V4-Flash-0731", "winner": "TIE", "verdict_code": "TIE", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-1/verdicts/q08__DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS__vs__Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL.json" }, "qwen35-claude": { "key": "qwen35-claude", "label": "Qwen 3.5 vs Claude", "first": "qwen35", "second": "claude", "status": "tie", "result": "Functional tie", "short_result": "Tie", "basis": "Both answers direct BrightForge to seek immediate remand because Leo has a colorable fraud claim defeating fraudulent joinder, oppose arbitration for lack of assent, and pursue fraud while treating contract damages as limited and Orbit’s negligence claim as vulnerable to the economic-loss rule. Their differences do not establish materially different conduct or a concrete, record-supported client outcome.", "short_basis": "Both answers direct BrightForge to seek immediate remand because Leo has a colorable fraud claim defeating fraudulent joinder, oppose arbitration for lack of assent, and pursue fraud while treating contract damages as limited and Orbit’s negligence claim as vulnerable to the economic-loss rule.", "answer_a_was": "claude-opus-5", "answer_b_was": "Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_a_display": "Claude Opus 5", "answer_b_display": "Qwen 3.5 27B", "winner": "TIE", "verdict_code": "TIE", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-1/verdicts/q08__Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__vs__claude-opus-5.json" } }, "rejected_points": { "qwen38": 8, "deepseek": 0, "claude": 11, "qwen35": 10 }, "delivery_filter_matter": false }, { "qid": "q09", "number": 9, "series": "Series 1", "title": "The Deleted Messages and Privileged Memorandum", "category": "Discovery and privilege", "matter_page": "matters/q09/index.html", "question_file": "evidence/series-1/questions/q09.md", "key_file": "evidence/series-1/keys/q09.md", "answers": { "deepseek": "evidence/series-1/answers/DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS/DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS__q09_r1.md", "claude": "evidence/series-1/answers/claude-opus-5/claude-opus-5__q09_r1.md", "qwen35": "evidence/series-1/answers/Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL/Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__q09_r1.md", "qwen38": "evidence/series-1/answers/Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL/Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__q09_r1.md" }, "reasoning": { "deepseek": "evidence/series-1/answers/DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS/DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS__q09_r1.reasoning.md", "qwen35": "evidence/series-1/answers/Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL/Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__q09_r1.reasoning.md", "qwen38": "evidence/series-1/answers/Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL/Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__q09_r1.reasoning.md" }, "pairings": { "qwen38-claude": { "key": "qwen38-claude", "label": "Qwen 3.8 vs Claude", "first": "qwen38", "second": "claude", "status": "tie", "result": "Functional tie", "short_result": "Tie", "basis": "Both answers put Northstar on the same material path: concede the preservation gaps, undertake and fund targeted recovery, oppose a case-wide adverse inference and blanket phone imaging, permit limited preservation discovery, and enforce the memorandum’s clawback. Their differing assessments of prejudice, the vice president’s intent, and the precise curative package do not establish a record-supported difference in Northstar’s ultimate legal, financial, or evidentiary position.", "short_basis": "Both answers put Northstar on the same material path: concede the preservation gaps, undertake and fund targeted recovery, oppose a case-wide adverse inference and blanket phone imaging, permit limited preservation discovery, and enforce the memorandum’s clawback.", "answer_a_was": "Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_b_was": "claude-opus-5", "answer_a_display": "Qwen 3.8 27B", "answer_b_display": "Claude Opus 5", "winner": "TIE", "verdict_code": "TIE", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-1/verdicts/q09__Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__vs__claude-opus-5.json" }, "qwen38-deepseek": { "key": "qwen38-deepseek", "label": "Qwen 3.8 vs DeepSeek", "first": "qwen38", "second": "deepseek", "status": "tie", "result": "Functional tie", "short_result": "Tie", "basis": "Both answers place Northstar on the same material path: concede the preservation failures, investigate replacement sources, offer targeted remediation and reasonable curative costs, oppose an adverse inference absent intent, resist blanket phone imaging and outside-counsel testimony, and enforce the clawback. Their differing assessments of prejudice, monetary sanctions, and the general counsel’s deposition do not establish different concrete outcomes on the present record.", "short_basis": "Both answers place Northstar on the same material path: concede the preservation failures, investigate replacement sources, offer targeted remediation and reasonable curative costs, oppose an adverse inference absent intent, resist blanket phone imaging and outside-counsel testimony, and enforce the…", "answer_a_was": "Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_b_was": "DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS", "answer_a_display": "Qwen 3.8 27B", "answer_b_display": "DeepSeek V4-Flash-0731", "winner": "TIE", "verdict_code": "TIE", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-1/verdicts/q09__DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS__vs__Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL.json" }, "qwen38-qwen35": { "key": "qwen38-qwen35", "label": "Qwen 3.8 vs Qwen 3.5", "first": "qwen38", "second": "qwen35", "status": "local", "result": "Qwen 3.8 win", "short_result": "Qwen 3.8 win", "basis": "Answer A directs Northstar to issue a comprehensive supplemental hold covering Slack, texts, personal devices, consultants, and all relevant custodians, while Answer B recommends only limited preservation of selected devices and recipients. Following Answer B leaves known sources exposed to continuing deletion, risking additional irretrievable evidence loss and increased sanctions exposure. Exact difference: Answer A requires a supplemental hold covering every omitted source and relevant custodian; Answer B omits that comprehensive preservation step. Different conduct: A’s reader immediately suspends deletion and preserves Slack, texts, personal devices, consultant communications, and vendor data; B’s reader preserves principally the vice president’s phone, recipients’ copies, and the general counsel’s laptop. Concrete consequence: Under B, relevant communications outside those limited sources may be deleted, further degrading Northstar’s evidentiary position and increasing sanctions exposure. Record support: The original hold omitted Slack, texts, personal phones, and two consultants; Slack automatically deletes messages after 30 days, and prior failures already caused unrecoverable loss. Material magnitude: Additional loss could impair Northstar’s antitrust defense and support broader discovery, monetary sanctions, or curative measures. Likelihood: A rational professional must expand preservation now because the duty is continuing and the record identifies active deletion systems and unpreserved custodians. No safe neutralization by ordinary verification: Correcting B requires designing and implementing the comprehensive supplemental preservation plan that B failed to supply.", "short_basis": "Answer A directs Northstar to issue a comprehensive supplemental hold covering Slack, texts, personal devices, consultants, and all relevant custodians, while Answer B recommends only limited preservation of selected devices and recipients.", "answer_a_was": "Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_b_was": "Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_a_display": "Qwen 3.8 27B", "answer_b_display": "Qwen 3.5 27B", "winner": "Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "verdict_code": "A", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-1/verdicts/q09__Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__vs__Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL.json" }, "deepseek-claude": { "key": "deepseek-claude", "label": "DeepSeek vs Claude", "first": "deepseek", "second": "claude", "status": "tie", "result": "Functional tie", "short_result": "Tie", "basis": "Both answers direct Northstar to concede the January 5 preservation trigger and preservation failures, pursue replacement discovery and targeted device examination, accept proportionate monetary relief, oppose a broad adverse inference and blanket imaging, limit counsel depositions, and enforce the memorandum’s clawback. Their readers therefore reach the same materially safe litigation and remediation posture.", "short_basis": "Both answers direct Northstar to concede the January 5 preservation trigger and preservation failures, pursue replacement discovery and targeted device examination, accept proportionate monetary relief, oppose a broad adverse inference and blanket imaging, limit counsel depositions, and enforce the…", "answer_a_was": "DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS", "answer_b_was": "claude-opus-5", "answer_a_display": "DeepSeek V4-Flash-0731", "answer_b_display": "Claude Opus 5", "winner": "TIE", "verdict_code": "TIE", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-1/verdicts/q09__DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS__vs__claude-opus-5.json" }, "deepseek-qwen35": { "key": "deepseek-qwen35", "label": "DeepSeek vs Qwen 3.5", "first": "deepseek", "second": "qwen35", "status": "tie", "result": "Functional tie", "short_result": "Tie", "basis": "Both answers place Northstar on the same material path: acknowledge the January 5 preservation duty and subsequent failures, pursue replacement evidence, oppose severe sanctions and blanket imaging absent the required findings, use targeted discovery, and enforce the clawback order. Answer B contains overstatements, but ordinary verification against the supplied record and governing rules neutralizes them without changing those actions or the client’s demonstrated outcome.", "short_basis": "Both answers place Northstar on the same material path: acknowledge the January 5 preservation duty and subsequent failures, pursue replacement evidence, oppose severe sanctions and blanket imaging absent the required findings, use targeted discovery, and enforce the clawback order.", "answer_a_was": "DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS", "answer_b_was": "Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_a_display": "DeepSeek V4-Flash-0731", "answer_b_display": "Qwen 3.5 27B", "winner": "TIE", "verdict_code": "TIE", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-1/verdicts/q09__DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS__vs__Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL.json" }, "qwen35-claude": { "key": "qwen35-claude", "label": "Qwen 3.5 vs Claude", "first": "qwen35", "second": "claude", "status": "frontier", "result": "Claude win", "short_result": "Claude win", "basis": "Answer B directs immediate, Northstar-funded forensic and recipient-side collection to replace the deleted Slack and text evidence, while Answer A primarily proposes preservation and possible later imaging if ordered. Because recipients may possess copies and surviving screenshots and an exported channel already demonstrate replacement sources, Answer B’s approach can recover evidence, reduce statutory prejudice, and materially limit the scope of evidentiary sanctions.", "short_basis": "Answer B directs immediate, Northstar-funded forensic and recipient-side collection to replace the deleted Slack and text evidence, while Answer A primarily proposes preservation and possible later imaging if ordered.", "answer_a_was": "Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_b_was": "claude-opus-5", "answer_a_display": "Qwen 3.5 27B", "answer_b_display": "Claude Opus 5", "winner": "claude-opus-5", "verdict_code": "B", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-1/verdicts/q09__Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__vs__claude-opus-5.json" } }, "rejected_points": { "qwen38": 4, "deepseek": 2, "claude": 5, "qwen35": 11 }, "delivery_filter_matter": false }, { "qid": "q10", "number": 10, "series": "Series 1", "title": "The Easement and the Recovery Retreat", "category": "Property and housing", "matter_page": "matters/q10/index.html", "question_file": "evidence/series-1/questions/q10.md", "key_file": "evidence/series-1/keys/q10.md", "answers": { "deepseek": "evidence/series-1/answers/DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS/DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS__q10_r1.md", "claude": "evidence/series-1/answers/claude-opus-5/claude-opus-5__q10_r1.md", "qwen35": "evidence/series-1/answers/Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL/Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__q10_r1.md", "qwen38": "evidence/series-1/answers/Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL/Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__q10_r1.md" }, "reasoning": { "deepseek": "evidence/series-1/answers/DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS/DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS__q10_r1.reasoning.md", "claude": "evidence/series-1/answers/claude-opus-5/claude-opus-5__q10_r1.reasoning.md", "qwen35": "evidence/series-1/answers/Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL/Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__q10_r1.reasoning.md", "qwen38": "evidence/series-1/answers/Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL/Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__q10_r1.reasoning.md" }, "pairings": { "qwen38-claude": { "key": "qwen38-claude", "label": "Qwen 3.8 vs Claude", "first": "qwen38", "second": "claude", "status": "tie", "result": "Functional tie", "short_result": "Tie", "basis": "Both answers place Haven Ridge on the same material path: treat full retreat access at 70 daily trips as unlikely under the express easement, stop unauthorized work, pursue narrowly restored lawful access, and negotiate a recorded expansion with compensation and operational limits while evaluating redesign or alternative access. Both also correctly treat zoning as noncontrolling, prescription and necessity as weak, and the road alterations as creating liability exposure.", "short_basis": "Both answers place Haven Ridge on the same material path: treat full retreat access at 70 daily trips as unlikely under the express easement, stop unauthorized work, pursue narrowly restored lawful access, and negotiate a recorded expansion with compensation and operational limits while evaluating redesign…", "answer_a_was": "Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_b_was": "claude-opus-5", "answer_a_display": "Qwen 3.8 27B", "answer_b_display": "Claude Opus 5", "winner": "TIE", "verdict_code": "TIE", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-1/verdicts/q10__Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__vs__claude-opus-5.json" }, "qwen38-deepseek": { "key": "qwen38-deepseek", "label": "Qwen 3.8 vs DeepSeek", "first": "qwen38", "second": "deepseek", "status": "tie", "result": "Functional tie", "short_result": "Tie", "basis": "Both answers direct Haven Ridge toward the same material path: seek only limited lawful access, halt unauthorized roadwork, treat full retreat access as legally weak, and pursue a recorded negotiated expansion with operational limits, compensation, redesign, or alternative access. Neither answer demonstrates a different action that would materially alter Haven Ridge’s access, liability, project viability, or litigation position.", "short_basis": "Both answers direct Haven Ridge toward the same material path: seek only limited lawful access, halt unauthorized roadwork, treat full retreat access as legally weak, and pursue a recorded negotiated expansion with operational limits, compensation, redesign, or alternative access.", "answer_a_was": "DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS", "answer_b_was": "Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_a_display": "DeepSeek V4-Flash-0731", "answer_b_display": "Qwen 3.8 27B", "winner": "TIE", "verdict_code": "TIE", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-1/verdicts/q10__DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS__vs__Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL.json" }, "qwen38-qwen35": { "key": "qwen38-qwen35", "label": "Qwen 3.8 vs Qwen 3.5", "first": "qwen38", "second": "qwen35", "status": "tie", "result": "Functional tie", "short_result": "Tie", "basis": "Both answers place Haven Ridge on the same material path: full retreat access under the existing easement is unlikely, the fallback easement theories are weak, the road alterations create liability, total obstruction may be challenged, and a recorded negotiated expansion with operational limits is preferable to full-access litigation. The identified differences do not establish a different concrete outcome after ordinary verification.", "short_basis": "Both answers place Haven Ridge on the same material path: full retreat access under the existing easement is unlikely, the fallback easement theories are weak, the road alterations create liability, total obstruction may be challenged, and a recorded negotiated expansion with operational limits is…", "answer_a_was": "Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_b_was": "Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_a_display": "Qwen 3.5 27B", "answer_b_display": "Qwen 3.8 27B", "winner": "TIE", "verdict_code": "TIE", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-1/verdicts/q10__Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__vs__Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL.json" }, "deepseek-claude": { "key": "deepseek-claude", "label": "DeepSeek vs Claude", "first": "deepseek", "second": "claude", "status": "tie", "result": "Functional tie", "short_result": "Tie", "basis": "Both answers direct Haven Ridge to seek a narrow injunction restoring historical residential access, halt unauthorized roadwork, avoid relying on zoning, prescription, or necessity to support the full retreat, and pursue redesign plus a negotiated easement amendment. Both reject litigating for unrestricted 70-trip-per-day access as the primary strategy and place the client on the same materially safe path.", "short_basis": "Both answers direct Haven Ridge to seek a narrow injunction restoring historical residential access, halt unauthorized roadwork, avoid relying on zoning, prescription, or necessity to support the full retreat, and pursue redesign plus a negotiated easement amendment.", "answer_a_was": "claude-opus-5", "answer_b_was": "DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS", "answer_a_display": "Claude Opus 5", "answer_b_display": "DeepSeek V4-Flash-0731", "winner": "TIE", "verdict_code": "TIE", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-1/verdicts/q10__DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS__vs__claude-opus-5.json" }, "deepseek-qwen35": { "key": "deepseek-qwen35", "label": "DeepSeek vs Qwen 3.5", "first": "deepseek", "second": "qwen35", "status": "local", "result": "DeepSeek win", "short_result": "DeepSeek win", "basis": "Answer A directs Haven Ridge to seek a narrow preliminary injunction restoring permitted residential and emergency access while preserving the dispute over retreat operations. Answer B instead instructs counsel to “halt litigation posture immediately,” leaving the only practical access blocked during potentially unsuccessful negotiations despite Haven Ridge’s clear entitlement to some access.", "short_basis": "Answer A directs Haven Ridge to seek a narrow preliminary injunction restoring permitted residential and emergency access while preserving the dispute over retreat operations.", "answer_a_was": "DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS", "answer_b_was": "Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_a_display": "DeepSeek V4-Flash-0731", "answer_b_display": "Qwen 3.5 27B", "winner": "DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS", "verdict_code": "A", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-1/verdicts/q10__DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS__vs__Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL.json" }, "qwen35-claude": { "key": "qwen35-claude", "label": "Qwen 3.5 vs Claude", "first": "qwen35", "second": "claude", "status": "frontier", "result": "Claude win", "short_result": "Claude win", "basis": "Answer A directs Haven Ridge to seek an immediate, narrowly tailored injunction restoring historically permitted residential access while preserving the scope dispute; Answer B instead says to “halt litigation posture immediately” and pursue negotiation without distinguishing baseline access from full retreat access. Following B leaves Haven Ridge’s concededly valid easement physically blocked during negotiations, whereas A provides a supported route to restore lawful access without authorizing the contested retreat traffic. Exact difference. A recommends an immediate motion limited to historical residential access; B recommends halting litigation and omits that narrower motion. Different conduct. A’s reader promptly seeks an order unlocking the gate for baseline use; B’s reader proceeds to mediation while the gate remains locked. Concrete consequence. Under A, Haven Ridge can regain access authorized by the recorded easement; under B, it remains completely unable to use that access pending voluntary agreement. Record support. The deed grants access, Harris disputes scope rather than the easement’s existence, the road is locked, Rule 10 prohibits unreasonable self-help, and Rule 11 expressly favors feasible narrower relief. Material magnitude. Total denial of the parcel’s only practical access materially impairs Haven Ridge’s property and operational position. Likelihood. A rational professional would seek narrow relief now because the valid baseline right and total blockade make that motion materially stronger than a request for full retreat access. No safe neutralization by ordinary verification. Correcting B requires devising the omitted baseline/full-access distinction and resulting injunction strategy despite B’s express instruction to halt litigation.", "short_basis": "Answer A directs Haven Ridge to seek an immediate, narrowly tailored injunction restoring historically permitted residential access while preserving the scope dispute; Answer B instead says to “halt litigation posture immediately” and pursue negotiation without distinguishing baseline access from full…", "answer_a_was": "claude-opus-5", "answer_b_was": "Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_a_display": "Claude Opus 5", "answer_b_display": "Qwen 3.5 27B", "winner": "claude-opus-5", "verdict_code": "A", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-1/verdicts/q10__Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__vs__claude-opus-5.json" } }, "rejected_points": { "qwen38": 2, "deepseek": 3, "claude": 9, "qwen35": 8 }, "delivery_filter_matter": false }, { "qid": "q11", "number": 11, "series": "Series 1", "title": "The Time-Limited Demand", "category": "Insurance and settlement", "matter_page": "matters/q11/index.html", "question_file": "evidence/series-1/questions/q11.md", "key_file": "evidence/series-1/keys/q11.md", "answers": { "deepseek": "evidence/series-1/answers/DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS/DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS__q11_r1.md", "claude": "evidence/series-1/answers/claude-opus-5/claude-opus-5__q11_r1.md", "qwen35": "evidence/series-1/answers/Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL/Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__q11_r1.md", "qwen38": "evidence/series-1/answers/Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL/Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__q11_r1.md" }, "reasoning": { "deepseek": "evidence/series-1/answers/DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS/DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS__q11_r1.reasoning.md", "claude": "evidence/series-1/answers/claude-opus-5/claude-opus-5__q11_r1.reasoning.md", "qwen35": "evidence/series-1/answers/Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL/Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__q11_r1.reasoning.md", "qwen38": "evidence/series-1/answers/Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL/Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__q11_r1.reasoning.md" }, "pairings": { "qwen38-claude": { "key": "qwen38-claude", "label": "Qwen 3.8 vs Claude", "first": "qwen38", "second": "claude", "status": "tie", "result": "Functional tie", "short_result": "Tie", "basis": "Both answers direct Harborline to demand a full defense, independent counsel, and acceptance of the $950,000 demand with explicit notice of entire-judgment liability, while avoiding an unconsented settlement and preserving rights in any contribution agreement. Their additional differences do not establish a different, record-supported client outcome.", "short_basis": "Both answers direct Harborline to demand a full defense, independent counsel, and acceptance of the $950,000 demand with explicit notice of entire-judgment liability, while avoiding an unconsented settlement and preserving rights in any contribution agreement.", "answer_a_was": "Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_b_was": "claude-opus-5", "answer_a_display": "Qwen 3.8 27B", "answer_b_display": "Claude Opus 5", "winner": "TIE", "verdict_code": "TIE", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-1/verdicts/q11__Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__vs__claude-opus-5.json" }, "qwen38-deepseek": { "key": "qwen38-deepseek", "label": "Qwen 3.8 vs DeepSeek", "first": "qwen38", "second": "deepseek", "status": "tie", "result": "Functional tie", "short_result": "Tie", "basis": "Both answers put Harborline on the same material path: demand full settlement funding and independent counsel in writing before Friday, preserve excess-judgment rights, avoid an unconsented direct settlement, and contribute only through a written consent-and-reservation arrangement. No difference shown would likely change Harborline’s conduct or concrete position.", "short_basis": "Both answers put Harborline on the same material path: demand full settlement funding and independent counsel in writing before Friday, preserve excess-judgment rights, avoid an unconsented direct settlement, and contribute only through a written consent-and-reservation arrangement.", "answer_a_was": "DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS", "answer_b_was": "Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_a_display": "DeepSeek V4-Flash-0731", "answer_b_display": "Qwen 3.8 27B", "winner": "TIE", "verdict_code": "TIE", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-1/verdicts/q11__DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS__vs__Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL.json" }, "qwen38-qwen35": { "key": "qwen38-qwen35", "label": "Qwen 3.8 vs Qwen 3.5", "first": "qwen38", "second": "qwen35", "status": "tie", "result": "Functional tie", "short_result": "Tie", "basis": "Both answers direct Harborline to demand a full defense, independent counsel, and timely acceptance of the $950,000 demand; reject late notice absent substantial prejudice; avoid an unauthorized direct settlement; and preserve reimbursement rights if Harborline contributes. After ordinary verification rejects Answer B’s unsupported ancillary instructions, both readers remain on the same materially safe pre-Friday path.", "short_basis": "Both answers direct Harborline to demand a full defense, independent counsel, and timely acceptance of the $950,000 demand; reject late notice absent substantial prejudice; avoid an unauthorized direct settlement; and preserve reimbursement rights if Harborline contributes.", "answer_a_was": "Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_b_was": "Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_a_display": "Qwen 3.8 27B", "answer_b_display": "Qwen 3.5 27B", "winner": "TIE", "verdict_code": "TIE", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-1/verdicts/q11__Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__vs__Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL.json" }, "deepseek-claude": { "key": "deepseek-claude", "label": "DeepSeek vs Claude", "first": "deepseek", "second": "claude", "status": "tie", "result": "Functional tie", "short_result": "Tie", "basis": "Both answers direct Harborline to demand immediate insurer-funded acceptance of the $950,000 offer, document excess-judgment exposure, request independent counsel, and avoid unilateral settlement or an unprotected contribution. The disputed additional recommendations do not establish that competent counsel would take materially different action or that Harborline would experience a different concrete outcome.", "short_basis": "Both answers direct Harborline to demand immediate insurer-funded acceptance of the $950,000 offer, document excess-judgment exposure, request independent counsel, and avoid unilateral settlement or an unprotected contribution.", "answer_a_was": "claude-opus-5", "answer_b_was": "DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS", "answer_a_display": "Claude Opus 5", "answer_b_display": "DeepSeek V4-Flash-0731", "winner": "TIE", "verdict_code": "TIE", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-1/verdicts/q11__DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS__vs__claude-opus-5.json" }, "deepseek-qwen35": { "key": "deepseek-qwen35", "label": "DeepSeek vs Qwen 3.5", "first": "deepseek", "second": "qwen35", "status": "tie", "result": "Functional tie", "short_result": "Tie", "basis": "Both answers put Harborline on the same material path: demand that the insurer timely fund the $950,000 settlement, provide independent counsel, and abandon late notice absent proven prejudice. Both advise against unilateral settlement or contribution without insurer consent and a written rights-preserving reimbursement arrangement, leaving Harborline in the same materially safe position before Friday.", "short_basis": "Both answers put Harborline on the same material path: demand that the insurer timely fund the $950,000 settlement, provide independent counsel, and abandon late notice absent proven prejudice.", "answer_a_was": "Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_b_was": "DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS", "answer_a_display": "Qwen 3.5 27B", "answer_b_display": "DeepSeek V4-Flash-0731", "winner": "TIE", "verdict_code": "TIE", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-1/verdicts/q11__DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS__vs__Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL.json" }, "qwen35-claude": { "key": "qwen35-claude", "label": "Qwen 3.5 vs Claude", "first": "qwen35", "second": "claude", "status": "tie", "result": "Functional tie", "short_result": "Tie", "basis": "Both answers direct Harborline to demand before Friday that the insurer accept the $950,000 within-limits settlement, warn of liability for an excess judgment, request independent counsel, and avoid either unilateral settlement or an unprotected contribution. After ordinary verification removes unsupported collateral instructions, both readers remain on the same materially safe path.", "short_basis": "Both answers direct Harborline to demand before Friday that the insurer accept the $950,000 within-limits settlement, warn of liability for an excess judgment, request independent counsel, and avoid either unilateral settlement or an unprotected contribution.", "answer_a_was": "claude-opus-5", "answer_b_was": "Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_a_display": "Claude Opus 5", "answer_b_display": "Qwen 3.5 27B", "winner": "TIE", "verdict_code": "TIE", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-1/verdicts/q11__Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__vs__claude-opus-5.json" } }, "rejected_points": { "qwen38": 0, "deepseek": 7, "claude": 8, "qwen35": 14 }, "delivery_filter_matter": false }, { "qid": "q12", "number": 12, "series": "Series 1", "title": "The Copyleft Audit", "category": "Software licensing", "matter_page": "matters/q12/index.html", "question_file": "evidence/series-1/questions/q12.md", "key_file": "evidence/series-1/keys/q12.md", "answers": { "deepseek": "evidence/series-1/answers/DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS/DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS__q12_r1.md", "claude": "evidence/series-1/answers/claude-opus-5/claude-opus-5__q12_r1.md", "qwen35": "evidence/series-1/answers/Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL/Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__q12_r1.md", "qwen38": "evidence/series-1/answers/Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL/Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__q12_r1.md" }, "reasoning": { "deepseek": "evidence/series-1/answers/DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS/DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS__q12_r1.reasoning.md", "claude": "evidence/series-1/answers/claude-opus-5/claude-opus-5__q12_r1.reasoning.md", "qwen35": "evidence/series-1/answers/Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL/Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__q12_r1.reasoning.md", "qwen38": "evidence/series-1/answers/Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL/Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__q12_r1.reasoning.md" }, "pairings": { "qwen38-claude": { "key": "qwen38-claude", "label": "Qwen 3.8 vs Claude", "first": "qwen38", "second": "claude", "status": "tie", "result": "Functional tie", "short_result": "Tie", "basis": "Both readers end on the same material path: treat device shipments as infringement, reject the cloud demand, determine firmware scope through technical review, release the covered source, pursue a narrow neutral audit and settlement, preserve evidence, and disclose the matter to the acquirer. After rejecting unsupported interim and monetary assumptions, neither answer demonstrates a different record-supported client outcome.", "short_basis": "Both readers end on the same material path: treat device shipments as infringement, reject the cloud demand, determine firmware scope through technical review, release the covered source, pursue a narrow neutral audit and settlement, preserve evidence, and disclose the matter to the acquirer.", "answer_a_was": "Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_b_was": "claude-opus-5", "answer_a_display": "Qwen 3.8 27B", "answer_b_display": "Claude Opus 5", "winner": "TIE", "verdict_code": "TIE", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-1/verdicts/q12__Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__vs__claude-opus-5.json" }, "qwen38-deepseek": { "key": "qwen38-deepseek", "label": "Qwen 3.8 vs DeepSeek", "first": "qwen38", "second": "deepseek", "status": "tie", "result": "Functional tie", "short_result": "Tie", "basis": "Both answers put Kestrel on the same materially safe path: preserve evidence, stop further noncompliant distribution absent source compliance or a transition license, determine firmware derivation scope, resist cloud and repository-wide demands, pursue a protected audit and global settlement, and disclose the matter to the acquirer. Their different remediation sequencing and exposure estimates do not establish that either produces a better client outcome on the supplied record.", "short_basis": "Both answers put Kestrel on the same materially safe path: preserve evidence, stop further noncompliant distribution absent source compliance or a transition license, determine firmware derivation scope, resist cloud and repository-wide demands, pursue a protected audit and global settlement, and disclose…", "answer_a_was": "Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_b_was": "DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS", "answer_a_display": "Qwen 3.8 27B", "answer_b_display": "DeepSeek V4-Flash-0731", "winner": "TIE", "verdict_code": "TIE", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-1/verdicts/q12__DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS__vs__Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL.json" }, "qwen38-qwen35": { "key": "qwen38-qwen35", "label": "Qwen 3.8 vs Qwen 3.5", "first": "qwen38", "second": "qwen35", "status": "local", "result": "Qwen 3.8 win", "short_result": "Qwen 3.8 win", "basis": "Answer A materially miscalculates 19-month device revenue as approximately $8.7 million rather than $44.3 million, then recommends settlement authority up to $3.5 million despite Meadowlark’s $2 million demand and without deriving its $2.0–$4.5 million exposure range. Answer B uses the supplied revenue, margin, device count, registration rule, and 63-file CMI count to give the board a transparent $0.3–$2.6 million model and materially lower, supportable settlement authority, protecting Kestrel from over-reserving or paying an unsupported premium during acquisition negotiations.", "short_basis": "Answer A materially miscalculates 19-month device revenue as approximately $8.7 million rather than $44.3 million, then recommends settlement authority up to $3.5 million despite Meadowlark’s $2 million demand and without deriving its $2.0–$4.5 million exposure range.", "answer_a_was": "Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_b_was": "Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_a_display": "Qwen 3.5 27B", "answer_b_display": "Qwen 3.8 27B", "winner": "Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "verdict_code": "B", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-1/verdicts/q12__Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__vs__Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL.json" }, "deepseek-claude": { "key": "deepseek-claude", "label": "DeepSeek vs Claude", "first": "deepseek", "second": "claude", "status": "local", "result": "DeepSeek win", "short_result": "DeepSeek win", "basis": "Answer A treats a written source offer as sufficient and directs Kestrel to continue shipping for several days before publishing the source, although the supplied license requires recipients to be provided the complete corresponding source. Answer B instead directs Kestrel to stop distribution unless it actually provides compliant source or obtains a transition license, preventing additional unlicensed shipments and preserving its position against an injunction.", "short_basis": "Answer A treats a written source offer as sufficient and directs Kestrel to continue shipping for several days before publishing the source, although the supplied license requires recipients to be provided the complete corresponding source.", "answer_a_was": "claude-opus-5", "answer_b_was": "DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS", "answer_a_display": "Claude Opus 5", "answer_b_display": "DeepSeek V4-Flash-0731", "winner": "DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS", "verdict_code": "B", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-1/verdicts/q12__DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS__vs__claude-opus-5.json" }, "deepseek-qwen35": { "key": "deepseek-qwen35", "label": "DeepSeek vs Qwen 3.5", "first": "deepseek", "second": "qwen35", "status": "local", "result": "DeepSeek win", "short_result": "DeepSeek win", "basis": "Answer B labels $2.0–$4.5 million the defensible exposure range and converts that figure into a $3.5 million settlement ceiling and acquisition protections, while omitting the record-supported upper exposure of approximately $15.1 million in attributable profits plus $1.575 million in CMI damages. Answer A identifies that ceiling and the need for apportionment evidence, allowing the board to negotiate, reserve, and structure acquisition protection without falsely treating exposure as capped below $4.5 million.", "short_basis": "Answer B labels $2.0–$4.5 million the defensible exposure range and converts that figure into a $3.5 million settlement ceiling and acquisition protections, while omitting the record-supported upper exposure of approximately $15.1 million in attributable profits plus $1.575 million in CMI damages.", "answer_a_was": "DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS", "answer_b_was": "Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_a_display": "DeepSeek V4-Flash-0731", "answer_b_display": "Qwen 3.5 27B", "winner": "DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS", "verdict_code": "A", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-1/verdicts/q12__DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS__vs__Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL.json" }, "qwen35-claude": { "key": "qwen35-claude", "label": "Qwen 3.5 vs Claude", "first": "qwen35", "second": "claude", "status": "frontier", "result": "Claude win", "short_result": "Claude win", "basis": "Answer A directs Kestrel to release the low-value modified component, verify the interface boundary, and continue device shipments in compliance; Answer B treats unsupported firmware-wide disclosure as likely and orders an immediate shipment halt. That halt would unnecessarily sacrifice approximately $522,000 in gross profit over 20 days—or about $1.1 million over the stated six-week replacement period—and increase acquisition risk.", "short_basis": "Answer A directs Kestrel to release the low-value modified component, verify the interface boundary, and continue device shipments in compliance; Answer B treats unsupported firmware-wide disclosure as likely and orders an immediate shipment halt.", "answer_a_was": "claude-opus-5", "answer_b_was": "Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_a_display": "Claude Opus 5", "answer_b_display": "Qwen 3.5 27B", "winner": "claude-opus-5", "verdict_code": "A", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-1/verdicts/q12__Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__vs__claude-opus-5.json" } }, "rejected_points": { "qwen38": 2, "deepseek": 3, "claude": 4, "qwen35": 10 }, "delivery_filter_matter": false }, { "qid": "q13", "number": 13, "series": "Series 1", "title": "The Hold You Must Write", "category": "Discovery and preservation", "matter_page": "matters/q13/index.html", "question_file": "evidence/series-1/questions/q13.md", "key_file": "evidence/series-1/keys/q13.md", "answers": { "deepseek": "evidence/series-1/answers/DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS/DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS__q13_r1.md", "claude": "evidence/series-1/answers/claude-opus-5/claude-opus-5__q13_r1.md", "qwen35": "evidence/series-1/answers/Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL/Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__q13_r1.md", "qwen38": "evidence/series-1/answers/Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL/Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__q13_r1.md" }, "reasoning": { "deepseek": "evidence/series-1/answers/DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS/DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS__q13_r1.reasoning.md", "claude": "evidence/series-1/answers/claude-opus-5/claude-opus-5__q13_r1.reasoning.md", "qwen35": "evidence/series-1/answers/Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL/Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__q13_r1.reasoning.md", "qwen38": "evidence/series-1/answers/Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL/Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__q13_r1.reasoning.md" }, "pairings": { "qwen38-claude": { "key": "qwen38-claude", "label": "Qwen 3.8 vs Claude", "first": "qwen38", "second": "claude", "status": "tie", "result": "Functional tie", "short_result": "Tie", "basis": "Both answers put counsel on the same material path: immediately preserve the messaging-app data and Bell’s endpoint, suspend every identified deletion or overwrite process, preserve contractor and vendor-held materials, collect the relevant systems, and maintain a continuing hold without custodian self-selection. Their differences in priority labels, recipient mechanics, scope, and collection detail do not produce a demonstrated difference in preserved evidence or client outcome.", "short_basis": "Both answers put counsel on the same material path: immediately preserve the messaging-app data and Bell’s endpoint, suspend every identified deletion or overwrite process, preserve contractor and vendor-held materials, collect the relevant systems, and maintain a continuing hold without custodian…", "answer_a_was": "Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_b_was": "claude-opus-5", "answer_a_display": "Qwen 3.8 27B", "answer_b_display": "Claude Opus 5", "winner": "TIE", "verdict_code": "TIE", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-1/verdicts/q13__Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__vs__claude-opus-5.json" }, "qwen38-deepseek": { "key": "qwen38-deepseek", "label": "Qwen 3.8 vs DeepSeek", "first": "qwen38", "second": "deepseek", "status": "tie", "result": "Functional tie", "short_result": "Tie", "basis": "Both answers place the identified custodians under hold and direct timely preservation of the personal messaging app, Bell’s laptop and mailbox, shared drives, Slack, telemetry, Jira/Git, contractor materials, and vendor-hosted records. Their differences do not establish that a competent professional would allow any identified evidence to be lost or otherwise alter Trellick’s material position.", "short_basis": "Both answers place the identified custodians under hold and direct timely preservation of the personal messaging app, Bell’s laptop and mailbox, shared drives, Slack, telemetry, Jira/Git, contractor materials, and vendor-hosted records.", "answer_a_was": "Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_b_was": "DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS", "answer_a_display": "Qwen 3.8 27B", "answer_b_display": "DeepSeek V4-Flash-0731", "winner": "TIE", "verdict_code": "TIE", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-1/verdicts/q13__DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS__vs__Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL.json" }, "qwen38-qwen35": { "key": "qwen38-qwen35", "label": "Qwen 3.8 vs Qwen 3.5", "first": "qwen38", "second": "qwen35", "status": "local", "result": "Qwen 3.8 win", "short_result": "Qwen 3.8 win", "basis": "Answer A requires DevOps to disable deletion and garbage collection and create centralized snapshots of Git and Jira within 48 hours. Answer B leaves these mutable, relevant engineering systems to general custodian instructions, without the technical preservation necessary to secure a point-in-time evidentiary record.", "short_basis": "Answer A requires DevOps to disable deletion and garbage collection and create centralized snapshots of Git and Jira within 48 hours. Answer B leaves these mutable, relevant engineering systems to general custodian instructions, without the technical preservation necessary to secure a point-in-time…", "answer_a_was": "Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_b_was": "Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_a_display": "Qwen 3.8 27B", "answer_b_display": "Qwen 3.5 27B", "winner": "Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "verdict_code": "A", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-1/verdicts/q13__Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__vs__Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL.json" }, "deepseek-claude": { "key": "deepseek-claude", "label": "DeepSeek vs Claude", "first": "deepseek", "second": "claude", "status": "tie", "result": "Functional tie", "short_result": "Tie", "basis": "Both answers place the client on the same material preservation path: issue a three-year, continuing hold; prevent custodian self-selection; immediately stop messaging-app deletion; preserve Bell’s laptop and mailbox; suspend shared-drive, Slack, and telemetry destruction; snapshot Jira/Git; and direct preservation by Fenwick and the support vendor. Their differences do not establish that any identified evidence would be preserved under one answer but lost under the other.", "short_basis": "Both answers place the client on the same material preservation path: issue a three-year, continuing hold; prevent custodian self-selection; immediately stop messaging-app deletion; preserve Bell’s laptop and mailbox; suspend shared-drive, Slack, and telemetry destruction; snapshot Jira/Git; and direct…", "answer_a_was": "claude-opus-5", "answer_b_was": "DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS", "answer_a_display": "Claude Opus 5", "answer_b_display": "DeepSeek V4-Flash-0731", "winner": "TIE", "verdict_code": "TIE", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-1/verdicts/q13__DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS__vs__claude-opus-5.json" }, "deepseek-qwen35": { "key": "deepseek-qwen35", "label": "DeepSeek vs Qwen 3.5", "first": "deepseek", "second": "qwen35", "status": "tie", "result": "Functional tie", "short_result": "Tie", "basis": "Both answers place the relevant custodians and VX-9 information under an immediate hold and direct technical intervention for the identified fixed and rolling deletion risks, including Bell’s devices, personal messaging, Slack, telemetry, shared drives, contractors, and vendor-hosted support data. The differences do not demonstrate that a competent reader would allow specific evidence to be lost or otherwise place the client on a materially different path.", "short_basis": "Both answers place the relevant custodians and VX-9 information under an immediate hold and direct technical intervention for the identified fixed and rolling deletion risks, including Bell’s devices, personal messaging, Slack, telemetry, shared drives, contractors, and vendor-hosted support data.", "answer_a_was": "DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS", "answer_b_was": "Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_a_display": "DeepSeek V4-Flash-0731", "answer_b_display": "Qwen 3.5 27B", "winner": "TIE", "verdict_code": "TIE", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-1/verdicts/q13__DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS__vs__Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL.json" }, "qwen35-claude": { "key": "qwen35-claude", "label": "Qwen 3.5 vs Claude", "first": "qwen35", "second": "claude", "status": "frontier", "result": "Claude win", "short_result": "Claude win", "basis": "Answer A requires disabling the one-week messaging-app auto-delete today, while Answer B permits a 48-hour delay and prioritizes Bell’s Friday laptop reimaging. Because substantive engineering discussions auto-delete after seven days, that delay foreseeably destroys messages reaching the threshold before preservation occurs. Exact difference. A says “Disable today”; B gives personal-message preservation a deadline of “Within 48 hours.” Different conduct. A’s reader disables auto-delete today; B’s reader may address Bell’s laptop first and wait up to 48 hours. Concrete consequence. Work messages reaching seven days during that interval are deleted, depriving Trellick of potentially relevant engineering communications. Record support. The record states that substantial work discussion occurs in the app and that messages auto-delete after one week. Material magnitude. Lost firmware-team communications may impair Trellick’s evidence concerning VX-9 development, defects, testing, and the incidents. Likelihood. B expressly ranks other actions ahead of the app and authorizes a 48-hour completion window while deletion remains active. No safe neutralization by ordinary verification. Verification confirms the rolling deletion risk; recovering deleted communications would require reconstruction or an unsupported assumption of recoverability.", "short_basis": "Answer A requires disabling the one-week messaging-app auto-delete today, while Answer B permits a 48-hour delay and prioritizes Bell’s Friday laptop reimaging. Because substantive engineering discussions auto-delete after seven days, that delay foreseeably destroys messages reaching the threshold before…", "answer_a_was": "claude-opus-5", "answer_b_was": "Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_a_display": "Claude Opus 5", "answer_b_display": "Qwen 3.5 27B", "winner": "claude-opus-5", "verdict_code": "A", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-1/verdicts/q13__Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__vs__claude-opus-5.json" } }, "rejected_points": { "qwen38": 0, "deepseek": 3, "claude": 8, "qwen35": 3 }, "delivery_filter_matter": false }, { "qid": "q14", "number": 14, "series": "Series 1", "title": "The Redline Mandate", "category": "Technology transactions", "matter_page": "matters/q14/index.html", "question_file": "evidence/series-1/questions/q14.md", "key_file": "evidence/series-1/keys/q14.md", "answers": { "deepseek": "evidence/series-1/answers/DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS/DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS__q14_r1.md", "claude": "evidence/series-1/answers/claude-opus-5/claude-opus-5__q14_r1.md", "qwen35": "evidence/series-1/answers/Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL/Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__q14_r1.md", "qwen38": "evidence/series-1/answers/Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL/Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__q14_r1.md" }, "reasoning": { "deepseek": "evidence/series-1/answers/DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS/DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS__q14_r1.reasoning.md", "claude": "evidence/series-1/answers/claude-opus-5/claude-opus-5__q14_r1.reasoning.md", "qwen35": "evidence/series-1/answers/Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL/Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__q14_r1.reasoning.md", "qwen38": "evidence/series-1/answers/Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL/Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__q14_r1.reasoning.md" }, "pairings": { "qwen38-claude": { "key": "qwen38-claude", "label": "Qwen 3.8 vs Claude", "first": "qwen38", "second": "claude", "status": "local", "result": "Qwen 3.8 win", "short_result": "Qwen 3.8 win", "basis": "Answer A applies a supercap to purported “Data Security Obligations” but never imposes an affirmative safeguards or security-incident notification obligation on Vendor. Answer B supplies both covenants, giving Bellhaven enforceable security and notice rights rather than a cap governing obligations that the supplied agreement does not establish.", "short_basis": "Answer A applies a supercap to purported “Data Security Obligations” but never imposes an affirmative safeguards or security-incident notification obligation on Vendor. Answer B supplies both covenants, giving Bellhaven enforceable security and notice rights rather than a cap governing obligations that the…", "answer_a_was": "claude-opus-5", "answer_b_was": "Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_a_display": "Claude Opus 5", "answer_b_display": "Qwen 3.8 27B", "winner": "Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "verdict_code": "B", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-1/verdicts/q14__Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__vs__claude-opus-5.json" }, "qwen38-deepseek": { "key": "qwen38-deepseek", "label": "Qwen 3.8 vs DeepSeek", "first": "qwen38", "second": "deepseek", "status": "local", "result": "Qwen 3.8 win", "short_result": "Qwen 3.8 win", "basis": "Answer B creates enforceable confidentiality, data-security, and Security Incident notification duties whose breaches receive the required supercap treatment. Answer A merely references unspecified confidentiality and data-security obligations absent from the supplied draft, leaving Bellhaven unable to execute it safely without adding the substantive protections the mandate requires.", "short_basis": "Answer B creates enforceable confidentiality, data-security, and Security Incident notification duties whose breaches receive the required supercap treatment. Answer A merely references unspecified confidentiality and data-security obligations absent from the supplied draft, leaving Bellhaven unable to…", "answer_a_was": "DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS", "answer_b_was": "Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_a_display": "DeepSeek V4-Flash-0731", "answer_b_display": "Qwen 3.8 27B", "winner": "Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "verdict_code": "B", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-1/verdicts/q14__DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS__vs__Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL.json" }, "qwen38-qwen35": { "key": "qwen38-qwen35", "label": "Qwen 3.8 vs Qwen 3.5", "first": "qwen38", "second": "qwen35", "status": "local", "result": "Qwen 3.8 win", "short_result": "Qwen 3.8 win", "basis": "Answer A excludes Vendor’s data-security obligations from the liability cap but creates no such obligations, leaving the exclusion functionally empty. Answer B imposes commercially reasonable safeguards and incident-notification duties, giving Bellhaven enforceable contractual protections that are subject to the required supercap. Exact difference. Answer A omits affirmative vendor data-security duties; Answer B Section 9.4 requires safeguards and prompt Security Incident notice. Different conduct. A’s reader must draft missing security obligations before approving the agreement; B’s reader can approve the supplied protections. Concrete consequence. Under A, Bellhaven lacks a contractual claim for failure to maintain reasonable safeguards or provide prompt incident notice; under B, it has one. Record support. The vendor draft contains no security duty, while the mandate requires Vendor’s data-security obligations to be addressed and directs that necessary language be added where the draft is silent. Material magnitude. Enforceable safeguards and incident notice materially affect Bellhaven’s legal, evidentiary, and operational position following a security incident. Likelihood. A competent customer-side lawyer would require operative security duties before treating the cap exclusion as satisfying the mandate. No safe neutralization by ordinary verification. Detecting the omission is straightforward, but curing it requires drafting the substantive obligations that Answer A failed to supply. A’s early-term ordinary cap — concrete consequence failed because the record does not state fee timing or whether twelve months of fees are prepaid. A’s supercap cross-reference — different conduct failed because the independent $4 million floor satisfies the permitted fallback. Usage Data ownership — concrete consequence failed because no distinct ownership dispute or disposition is established by the record. Feedback-license wording — material magnitude failed because both answers reject assignment and permit only licensed use. Renewal structure — exact difference failed as a mandate violation because both one-year automatic renewal and no automatic renewal are permitted. Indemnity scope and remedy detail — different conduct failed because both provide the required third-party IP defense and indemnity. Dropped incidental, special, punitive, and loss-of-data exclusions — concrete consequence failed because the record does not establish a claim or the direction of net harm under the mutual exclusion.", "short_basis": "Answer A excludes Vendor’s data-security obligations from the liability cap but creates no such obligations, leaving the exclusion functionally empty. Answer B imposes commercially reasonable safeguards and incident-notification duties, giving Bellhaven enforceable contractual protections that are subject…", "answer_a_was": "Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_b_was": "Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_a_display": "Qwen 3.5 27B", "answer_b_display": "Qwen 3.8 27B", "winner": "Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "verdict_code": "B", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-1/verdicts/q14__Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__vs__Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL.json" }, "deepseek-claude": { "key": "deepseek-claude", "label": "DeepSeek vs Claude", "first": "deepseek", "second": "claude", "status": "local", "result": "DeepSeek win", "short_result": "DeepSeek win", "basis": "Answer A alone imposes a Customer Data IP indemnity on Bellhaven and makes that obligation uncapped under Section 8.3, despite the mandate not authorizing this concession. Answer B leaves Bellhaven without that additional defense-and-indemnity exposure while still achieving the required vendor IP indemnity.", "short_basis": "Answer A alone imposes a Customer Data IP indemnity on Bellhaven and makes that obligation uncapped under Section 8.3, despite the mandate not authorizing this concession. Answer B leaves Bellhaven without that additional defense-and-indemnity exposure while still achieving the required vendor IP indemnity.", "answer_a_was": "claude-opus-5", "answer_b_was": "DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS", "answer_a_display": "Claude Opus 5", "answer_b_display": "DeepSeek V4-Flash-0731", "winner": "DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS", "verdict_code": "B", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-1/verdicts/q14__DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS__vs__claude-opus-5.json" }, "deepseek-qwen35": { "key": "deepseek-qwen35", "label": "DeepSeek vs Qwen 3.5", "first": "deepseek", "second": "qwen35", "status": "local", "result": "DeepSeek win", "short_result": "DeepSeek win", "basis": "Answer A limits ordinary liability to fees actually paid during the preceding twelve months, which may equal substantially less than twelve months of fees early in the term. Answer B guarantees an annualized twelve-month cap, satisfying Bellhaven’s mandatory minimum and preserving materially greater recovery rights from the outset.", "short_basis": "Answer A limits ordinary liability to fees actually paid during the preceding twelve months, which may equal substantially less than twelve months of fees early in the term.", "answer_a_was": "Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_b_was": "DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS", "answer_a_display": "Qwen 3.5 27B", "answer_b_display": "DeepSeek V4-Flash-0731", "winner": "DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS", "verdict_code": "B", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-1/verdicts/q14__DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS__vs__Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL.json" }, "qwen35-claude": { "key": "qwen35-claude", "label": "Qwen 3.5 vs Claude", "first": "qwen35", "second": "claude", "status": "frontier", "result": "Claude win", "short_result": "Claude win", "basis": "Answer A guarantees an ordinary liability cap equal to twelve months of fees by annualizing during the first contract year, while Answer B caps liability at only the fees already paid during that period. A competent professional can approve Answer A on this mandate item but must redraft Answer B; otherwise Bellhaven’s recovery for an ordinary vendor breach could fall materially below the mandated floor.", "short_basis": "Answer A guarantees an ordinary liability cap equal to twelve months of fees by annualizing during the first contract year, while Answer B caps liability at only the fees already paid during that period.", "answer_a_was": "claude-opus-5", "answer_b_was": "Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_a_display": "Claude Opus 5", "answer_b_display": "Qwen 3.5 27B", "winner": "claude-opus-5", "verdict_code": "A", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-1/verdicts/q14__Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__vs__claude-opus-5.json" } }, "rejected_points": { "qwen38": 0, "deepseek": 0, "claude": 0, "qwen35": 0 }, "delivery_filter_matter": false }, { "qid": "q15", "number": 15, "series": "Series 1", "title": "The Preference Demand", "category": "Bankruptcy", "matter_page": "matters/q15/index.html", "question_file": "evidence/series-1/questions/q15.md", "key_file": "evidence/series-1/keys/q15.md", "answers": { "deepseek": "evidence/series-1/answers/DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS/DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS__q15_r1.md", "claude": "evidence/series-1/answers/claude-opus-5/claude-opus-5__q15_r1.md", "qwen35": "evidence/series-1/answers/Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL/Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__q15_r1.md", "qwen38": "evidence/series-1/answers/Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL/Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__q15_r1.md" }, "reasoning": { "deepseek": "evidence/series-1/answers/DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS/DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS__q15_r1.reasoning.md", "claude": "evidence/series-1/answers/claude-opus-5/claude-opus-5__q15_r1.reasoning.md", "qwen35": "evidence/series-1/answers/Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL/Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__q15_r1.reasoning.md", "qwen38": "evidence/series-1/answers/Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL/Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__q15_r1.reasoning.md" }, "pairings": { "qwen38-claude": { "key": "qwen38-claude", "label": "Qwen 3.8 vs Claude", "first": "qwen38", "second": "claude", "status": "tie", "result": "Functional tie", "short_result": "Tie", "basis": "After unsupported estimates are rejected, both answers direct Pinion to defend the first three payments, treat the February 27 payment as exposed, subtract only documented post-February 27 unsecured new value, preserve the $95,000 administrative claim and double-duty argument, avoid unilateral setoff, and negotiate rather than pay the demand. Neither answer’s speculative exposure or settlement figure changes that materially safe path because both require verification of the missing shipment dates before settlement.", "short_basis": "After unsupported estimates are rejected, both answers direct Pinion to defend the first three payments, treat the February 27 payment as exposed, subtract only documented post-February 27 unsecured new value, preserve the $95,000 administrative claim and double-duty argument, avoid unilateral setoff, and…", "answer_a_was": "Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_b_was": "claude-opus-5", "answer_a_display": "Qwen 3.8 27B", "answer_b_display": "Claude Opus 5", "winner": "TIE", "verdict_code": "TIE", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-1/verdicts/q15__Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__vs__claude-opus-5.json" }, "qwen38-deepseek": { "key": "qwen38-deepseek", "label": "Qwen 3.8 vs DeepSeek", "first": "qwen38", "second": "deepseek", "status": "local", "result": "Qwen 3.8 win", "short_result": "Qwen 3.8 win", "basis": "Answer B applies $133,000 of shipments necessarily delivered before February 18 against the February 27 transfer, producing an impossible $21,000 exposure and a $25,000 settlement ceiling. Answer A correctly requires new value to follow February 27 and provides the proper formula, so its reader verifies shipment dates before fixing exposure; even the maximum possible $95,000 defense leaves at least $59,000 exposed.", "short_basis": "Answer B applies $133,000 of shipments necessarily delivered before February 18 against the February 27 transfer, producing an impossible $21,000 exposure and a $25,000 settlement ceiling.", "answer_a_was": "Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_b_was": "DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS", "answer_a_display": "Qwen 3.8 27B", "answer_b_display": "DeepSeek V4-Flash-0731", "winner": "Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "verdict_code": "A", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-1/verdicts/q15__DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS__vs__Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL.json" }, "qwen38-qwen35": { "key": "qwen38-qwen35", "label": "Qwen 3.8 vs Qwen 3.5", "first": "qwen38", "second": "qwen35", "status": "tie", "result": "Functional tie", "short_result": "Tie", "basis": "After ordinary verification, both readers reject the unsupported shipment allocations and follow the same material path: protect the first $458,000 as ordinary course, determine actual unsecured unpaid shipments after February 27, calculate exposure as $154,000 minus that amount, preserve the separate $95,000 administrative claim, avoid unilateral setoff, and negotiate a court-approved resolution. The differing estimates and settlement figures do not establish a record-supported difference in Pinion’s ultimate payment or legal position.", "short_basis": "After ordinary verification, both readers reject the unsupported shipment allocations and follow the same material path: protect the first $458,000 as ordinary course, determine actual unsecured unpaid shipments after February 27, calculate exposure as $154,000 minus that amount, preserve the separate…", "answer_a_was": "Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_b_was": "Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_a_display": "Qwen 3.5 27B", "answer_b_display": "Qwen 3.8 27B", "winner": "TIE", "verdict_code": "TIE", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-1/verdicts/q15__Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__vs__Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL.json" }, "deepseek-claude": { "key": "deepseek-claude", "label": "DeepSeek vs Claude", "first": "deepseek", "second": "claude", "status": "frontier", "result": "Claude win", "short_result": "Claude win", "basis": "Answer A applies $133,000 of goods delivered before February 27 against the February 27 payment, although new value must follow the transfer, producing an impossible $21,000 exposure and a $25,000 settlement ceiling. Answer B correctly limits that defense to deliveries after February 27, yielding the record-supported exposure range of $59,000–$154,000 pending delivery-date verification and causing counsel to obtain that evidence before negotiating.", "short_basis": "Answer A applies $133,000 of goods delivered before February 27 against the February 27 payment, although new value must follow the transfer, producing an impossible $21,000 exposure and a $25,000 settlement ceiling.", "answer_a_was": "DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS", "answer_b_was": "claude-opus-5", "answer_a_display": "DeepSeek V4-Flash-0731", "answer_b_display": "Claude Opus 5", "winner": "claude-opus-5", "verdict_code": "B", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-1/verdicts/q15__DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS__vs__claude-opus-5.json" }, "deepseek-qwen35": { "key": "deepseek-qwen35", "label": "DeepSeek vs Qwen 3.5", "first": "deepseek", "second": "qwen35", "status": "both", "result": "Both materially inadequate", "short_result": "Both inadequate", "basis": "Both answers recommend a $0–$25,000 settlement posture using invalid new-value calculations. If Pinion preserves the $95,000 administrative claim, the remaining $133,000 was necessarily delivered before February 18—and thus before the February 27 payment—so it cannot reduce that payment; the record also does not identify how much of the $95,000 was delivered after February 27. This leaves Pinion unable to calculate exposure safely and risks rejecting a reasonable settlement and incurring suit on exposure potentially as high as $154,000.", "short_basis": "Both answers recommend a $0–$25,000 settlement posture using invalid new-value calculations. If Pinion preserves the $95,000 administrative claim, the remaining $133,000 was necessarily delivered before February 18—and thus before the February 27 payment—so it cannot reduce that payment; the record also…", "answer_a_was": "DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS", "answer_b_was": "Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_a_display": "DeepSeek V4-Flash-0731", "answer_b_display": "Qwen 3.5 27B", "winner": "BOTH_INADEQUATE", "verdict_code": "BOTH_INADEQUATE", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-1/verdicts/q15__DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS__vs__Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL.json" }, "qwen35-claude": { "key": "qwen35-claude", "label": "Qwen 3.5 vs Claude", "first": "qwen35", "second": "claude", "status": "tie", "result": "Functional tie", "short_result": "Tie", "basis": "Both answers place Pinion on the same material path: defend the first three payments as ordinary course, treat February 27 as the principal exposure, determine exact post-February 27 deliveries, assert new value and the $95,000 administrative claim, refrain from applying the deposit without stay relief, and negotiate rather than pay the demand. Their different estimates and settlement ranges are unsupported by the missing delivery schedule, estate-solvency information, and negotiation facts, so no concrete outcome difference is established.", "short_basis": "Both answers place Pinion on the same material path: defend the first three payments as ordinary course, treat February 27 as the principal exposure, determine exact post-February 27 deliveries, assert new value and the $95,000 administrative claim, refrain from applying the deposit without stay relief, and…", "answer_a_was": "Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_b_was": "claude-opus-5", "answer_a_display": "Qwen 3.5 27B", "answer_b_display": "Claude Opus 5", "winner": "TIE", "verdict_code": "TIE", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-1/verdicts/q15__Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__vs__claude-opus-5.json" } }, "rejected_points": { "qwen38": 7, "deepseek": 4, "claude": 9, "qwen35": 7 }, "delivery_filter_matter": false }, { "qid": "q16", "number": 16, "series": "Series 1", "title": "The Ransomware Weekend", "category": "Cybersecurity", "matter_page": "matters/q16/index.html", "question_file": "evidence/series-1/questions/q16.md", "key_file": "evidence/series-1/keys/q16.md", "answers": { "deepseek": "evidence/series-1/answers/DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS/DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS__q16_r1.md", "claude": "evidence/series-1/answers/claude-opus-5/claude-opus-5__q16_r1.md", "qwen35": "evidence/series-1/answers/Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL/Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__q16_r1.md", "qwen38": "evidence/series-1/answers/Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL/Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__q16_r1.md" }, "reasoning": { "deepseek": "evidence/series-1/answers/DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS/DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS__q16_r1.reasoning.md", "claude": "evidence/series-1/answers/claude-opus-5/claude-opus-5__q16_r1.reasoning.md", "qwen35": "evidence/series-1/answers/Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL/Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__q16_r1.reasoning.md", "qwen38": "evidence/series-1/answers/Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL/Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__q16_r1.reasoning.md" }, "pairings": { "qwen38-claude": { "key": "qwen38-claude", "label": "Qwen 3.8 vs Claude", "first": "qwen38", "second": "claude", "status": "local", "result": "Qwen 3.8 win", "short_result": "Qwen 3.8 win", "basis": "Answer A concludes that participant-data acquisition is already reasonably likely but postpones the formal determination for up to 10 days, improperly shifting the notification clocks. Answer B directs Alderpoint to document that determination promptly and proceed on the existing evidence, avoiding delayed individual notices and, if the resident threshold is met, a late regulator filing.", "short_basis": "Answer A concludes that participant-data acquisition is already reasonably likely but postpones the formal determination for up to 10 days, improperly shifting the notification clocks.", "answer_a_was": "claude-opus-5", "answer_b_was": "Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_a_display": "Claude Opus 5", "answer_b_display": "Qwen 3.8 27B", "winner": "Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "verdict_code": "B", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-1/verdicts/q16__Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__vs__claude-opus-5.json" }, "qwen38-deepseek": { "key": "qwen38-deepseek", "label": "Qwen 3.8 vs DeepSeek", "first": "qwen38", "second": "deepseek", "status": "tie", "result": "Functional tie", "short_result": "Tie", "basis": "Both answers put Alderpoint on the same material path: treat employee acquisition as confirmed and participant acquisition as reasonably likely, preserve evidence, notify the insurer and clients promptly, track statutory notices, reject the CEO’s email, condition any ransom payment on screening and insurer consent, structure counsel-directed forensics, and disclose before signing. Their differences do not establish a materially different client outcome.", "short_basis": "Both answers put Alderpoint on the same material path: treat employee acquisition as confirmed and participant acquisition as reasonably likely, preserve evidence, notify the insurer and clients promptly, track statutory notices, reject the CEO’s email, condition any ransom payment on screening and insurer…", "answer_a_was": "DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS", "answer_b_was": "Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_a_display": "DeepSeek V4-Flash-0731", "answer_b_display": "Qwen 3.8 27B", "winner": "TIE", "verdict_code": "TIE", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-1/verdicts/q16__DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS__vs__Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL.json" }, "qwen38-qwen35": { "key": "qwen38-qwen35", "label": "Qwen 3.8 vs Qwen 3.5", "first": "qwen38", "second": "qwen35", "status": "tie", "result": "Functional tie", "short_result": "Tie", "basis": "Both answers direct Alderpoint to treat employee acquisition as confirmed and participant acquisition as reasonably likely; preserve evidence, notify the insurer and clients, prepare statutory notices, reject the CEO’s draft, bifurcate forensic work, condition ransom payment, and disclose to the acquirer before signing. Their differences do not demonstrate a materially different or unsafe client outcome after ordinary verification.", "short_basis": "Both answers direct Alderpoint to treat employee acquisition as confirmed and participant acquisition as reasonably likely; preserve evidence, notify the insurer and clients, prepare statutory notices, reject the CEO’s draft, bifurcate forensic work, condition ransom payment, and disclose to the acquirer…", "answer_a_was": "Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_b_was": "Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_a_display": "Qwen 3.8 27B", "answer_b_display": "Qwen 3.5 27B", "winner": "TIE", "verdict_code": "TIE", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-1/verdicts/q16__Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__vs__Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL.json" }, "deepseek-claude": { "key": "deepseek-claude", "label": "DeepSeek vs Claude", "first": "deepseek", "second": "claude", "status": "local", "result": "DeepSeek win", "short_result": "DeepSeek win", "basis": "Answer A postpones the participant-breach determination for at least 10 days even though the compromised-account query and contemporaneous outbound transfer already establish a reasonable likelihood of acquisition. Answer B starts the clocks Saturday, avoiding delayed individual notice and, if the residency threshold is confirmed, a late regulator filing. Exact difference. Answer A says participant determination should occur in “10–14 days” and gives individuals 45 days thereafter; Answer B says determination occurred no later than Saturday. Different conduct. Answer A’s reader calendars participant notice from a later determination and regulator notice after that date; Answer B’s reader calendars both from Saturday. Concrete consequence. Answer A permits participant notices after the statutory day-45 limit and, if 500 residents are affected, regulator notice after the 72-hour limit, degrading participants’ timely mitigation and Alderpoint’s compliance position. Record support. The unusual large database query from a compromised administrator account occurred during the documented 9 GB outbound transfer, satisfying the supplied reasonable-likelihood inference rule. Material magnitude. The potential scope is 1.9 million people whose Social Security numbers and health-plan information may have been acquired. Likelihood. A professional following Answer A would likely use its express delayed determination date to calculate deadlines rather than treat Saturday as day zero. No safe neutralization by ordinary verification. Correcting Answer A requires redoing its legal determination analysis and recalculating the clocks, not merely checking a date or fact.", "short_basis": "Answer A postpones the participant-breach determination for at least 10 days even though the compromised-account query and contemporaneous outbound transfer already establish a reasonable likelihood of acquisition.", "answer_a_was": "claude-opus-5", "answer_b_was": "DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS", "answer_a_display": "Claude Opus 5", "answer_b_display": "DeepSeek V4-Flash-0731", "winner": "DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS", "verdict_code": "B", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-1/verdicts/q16__DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS__vs__claude-opus-5.json" }, "deepseek-qwen35": { "key": "deepseek-qwen35", "label": "DeepSeek vs Qwen 3.5", "first": "deepseek", "second": "qwen35", "status": "tie", "result": "Functional tie", "short_result": "Tie", "basis": "Both answers put Alderpoint on the same material path: preserve evidence, contain the incident, engage counsel-directed forensics, notify the insurer, treat both datasets as acquired, coordinate client and individual notices, reject the CEO’s draft, defer ransom payment pending screening and consent, and disclose before signing. After verifying the unsupported resident-count assumptions, either reader can determine the regulator deadlines without reconstructing omitted legal analysis.", "short_basis": "Both answers put Alderpoint on the same material path: preserve evidence, contain the incident, engage counsel-directed forensics, notify the insurer, treat both datasets as acquired, coordinate client and individual notices, reject the CEO’s draft, defer ransom payment pending screening and consent, and…", "answer_a_was": "Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_b_was": "DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS", "answer_a_display": "Qwen 3.5 27B", "answer_b_display": "DeepSeek V4-Flash-0731", "winner": "TIE", "verdict_code": "TIE", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-1/verdicts/q16__DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS__vs__Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL.json" }, "qwen35-claude": { "key": "qwen35-claude", "label": "Qwen 3.5 vs Claude", "first": "qwen35", "second": "claude", "status": "local", "result": "Qwen 3.5 win", "short_result": "Qwen 3.5 win", "basis": "Answer A concludes that participant-data acquisition is reasonably likely now but postpones “determination” for up to 10 days and regulator notice until as late as day 13. Answer B treats the determination as made now and directs filing within 72 hours, preserving the statutory deadline. Exact difference. A delays the participant determination to day 10 and the regulator filing until 72 hours thereafter; B starts both clocks immediately. Different conduct. A’s reader waits up to 13 days to notify the regulator; B’s reader files within 72 hours. Concrete consequence. Under A, Alderpoint misses the participant-breach regulator deadline; under B, it preserves compliance. Record support. Rule 4 permits acquisition to be inferred from access, staging, and transfer indicators, all shown by the compromised administrator query and contemporaneous 9 GB outbound transfer; Rule 2 requires notice within 72 hours of determination. Material magnitude. Missing an express regulatory deadline for a potentially 1.9-million-person breach materially degrades Alderpoint’s regulatory position. Likelihood. A itself concludes acquisition is reasonably likely and directs Alderpoint to operate on that presumption, so a rational professional should determine the breach now. No safe neutralization by ordinary verification. Rejecting A’s delayed clock leaves the reader to re-derive the legally operative determination date and notification deadline.", "short_basis": "Answer A concludes that participant-data acquisition is reasonably likely now but postpones “determination” for up to 10 days and regulator notice until as late as day 13. Answer B treats the determination as made now and directs filing within 72 hours, preserving the statutory deadline. Exact difference.", "answer_a_was": "claude-opus-5", "answer_b_was": "Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_a_display": "Claude Opus 5", "answer_b_display": "Qwen 3.5 27B", "winner": "Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "verdict_code": "B", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-1/verdicts/q16__Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__vs__claude-opus-5.json" } }, "rejected_points": { "qwen38": 3, "deepseek": 3, "claude": 8, "qwen35": 6 }, "delivery_filter_matter": false }, { "qid": "q17", "number": 17, "series": "Series 1", "title": "The Review Flood", "category": "Discovery review", "matter_page": "matters/q17/index.html", "question_file": "evidence/series-1/questions/q17.md", "key_file": "evidence/series-1/keys/q17.md", "answers": { "deepseek": "evidence/series-1/answers/DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS/DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS__q17_r1.md", "claude": "evidence/series-1/answers/claude-opus-5/claude-opus-5__q17_r1.md", "qwen35": "evidence/series-1/answers/Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL/Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__q17_r1.md", "qwen38": "evidence/series-1/answers/Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL/Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__q17_r1.md" }, "reasoning": { "deepseek": "evidence/series-1/answers/DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS/DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS__q17_r1.reasoning.md", "claude": "evidence/series-1/answers/claude-opus-5/claude-opus-5__q17_r1.reasoning.md", "qwen35": "evidence/series-1/answers/Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL/Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__q17_r1.reasoning.md", "qwen38": "evidence/series-1/answers/Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL/Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__q17_r1.reasoning.md" }, "pairings": { "qwen38-claude": { "key": "qwen38-claude", "label": "Qwen 3.8 vs Claude", "first": "qwen38", "second": "claude", "status": "tie", "result": "Functional tie", "short_result": "Tie", "basis": "Both answers direct Lumen away from a broad Friday lawsuit and toward preservation, removal and settlement of the Voss disclosure, platform enforcement, pre-suit identification, and narrowly supported claims only after assembling admissible evidence sufficient to survive the special motion. Both reject claims against Voss and the platforms, opinion-based review claims, and an immediate blanket injunction.", "short_basis": "Both answers direct Lumen away from a broad Friday lawsuit and toward preservation, removal and settlement of the Voss disclosure, platform enforcement, pre-suit identification, and narrowly supported claims only after assembling admissible evidence sufficient to survive the special motion.", "answer_a_was": "Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_b_was": "claude-opus-5", "answer_a_display": "Qwen 3.8 27B", "answer_b_display": "Claude Opus 5", "winner": "TIE", "verdict_code": "TIE", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-1/verdicts/q17__Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__vs__claude-opus-5.json" }, "qwen38-deepseek": { "key": "qwen38-deepseek", "label": "Qwen 3.8 vs DeepSeek", "first": "qwen38", "second": "deepseek", "status": "tie", "result": "Functional tie", "short_result": "Tie", "basis": "Both answers direct Lumen to preserve evidence, address Voss’s confidentiality claim, report fake reviews, pursue pre-suit identification only for actionable speech, avoid the platforms and blanket injunction, and file only evidence-ready claims against the former employee and potentially Velvet. Both therefore place Lumen on the same materially safe path while avoiding anti-SLAPP fee exposure from a broad Friday filing.", "short_basis": "Both answers direct Lumen to preserve evidence, address Voss’s confidentiality claim, report fake reviews, pursue pre-suit identification only for actionable speech, avoid the platforms and blanket injunction, and file only evidence-ready claims against the former employee and potentially Velvet.", "answer_a_was": "Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_b_was": "DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS", "answer_a_display": "Qwen 3.8 27B", "answer_b_display": "DeepSeek V4-Flash-0731", "winner": "TIE", "verdict_code": "TIE", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-1/verdicts/q17__DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS__vs__Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL.json" }, "qwen38-qwen35": { "key": "qwen38-qwen35", "label": "Qwen 3.8 vs Qwen 3.5", "first": "qwen38", "second": "qwen35", "status": "local", "result": "Qwen 3.8 win", "short_result": "Qwen 3.8 win", "basis": "Answer A recommends filing against Velvet after an ignored demand and then relying on discovery to identify accounts, despite the discovery stay and the present gaps in admissible proof of actionable falsity, attribution, and specific pecuniary loss. Answer B instead holds those claims until the evidence can survive a special motion and uses targeted pre-suit subpoenas, avoiding a foreseeable fee award and blocked discovery.", "short_basis": "Answer A recommends filing against Velvet after an ignored demand and then relying on discovery to identify accounts, despite the discovery stay and the present gaps in admissible proof of actionable falsity, attribution, and specific pecuniary loss.", "answer_a_was": "Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_b_was": "Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_a_display": "Qwen 3.5 27B", "answer_b_display": "Qwen 3.8 27B", "winner": "Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "verdict_code": "B", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-1/verdicts/q17__Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__vs__Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL.json" }, "deepseek-claude": { "key": "deepseek-claude", "label": "DeepSeek vs Claude", "first": "deepseek", "second": "claude", "status": "frontier", "result": "Claude win", "short_result": "Claude win", "basis": "Answer A directs Lumen to preserve and immediately delete its unlawful public disclosure of Voss’s confidential treatment information; Answer B identifies the violation but omits removal from its immediate response. Following B’s sequence leaves the confidential information publicly accessible, prolonging the privacy harm and worsening Lumen’s mitigation position on Voss’s statutory claim. Exact difference: Answer B omits an instruction to remove Lumen’s public chart-based reply; Answer A says, “delete it today anyway to stop continuing publication and to mitigate.” Different conduct: A’s reader screenshots and removes the reply immediately; B’s reader preserves evidence but may leave the reply online while considering a correction, apology, or settlement. Concrete consequence: Under B, Voss’s confidential treatment and compliance information remains publicly accessible for longer, while Lumen remains responsible for publishing it. Record support: Rule 10 prohibits unauthorized public disclosure of a patient’s identity or treatment and provides a private action and statutory damages; the quoted reply expressly references Voss’s chart, follow-ups, aftercare, and swelling. Material magnitude: Continued exposure degrades a legally protected patient-confidentiality interest and Lumen’s mitigation posture on an existing statutory claim. Likelihood: B’s express Friday checklist omits removal and instead suggests later consideration of a correction or apology, making continued publication a likely operational result. No safe neutralization by ordinary verification: Confirming that the reply violates Rule 10 does not supply the omitted containment step in B’s recommended sequence.", "short_basis": "Answer A directs Lumen to preserve and immediately delete its unlawful public disclosure of Voss’s confidential treatment information; Answer B identifies the violation but omits removal from its immediate response.", "answer_a_was": "claude-opus-5", "answer_b_was": "DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS", "answer_a_display": "Claude Opus 5", "answer_b_display": "DeepSeek V4-Flash-0731", "winner": "claude-opus-5", "verdict_code": "A", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-1/verdicts/q17__DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS__vs__claude-opus-5.json" }, "deepseek-qwen35": { "key": "deepseek-qwen35", "label": "DeepSeek vs Qwen 3.5", "first": "deepseek", "second": "qwen35", "status": "tie", "result": "Functional tie", "short_result": "Tie", "basis": "Both answers reject indiscriminate Friday litigation, platform claims, claims based on protected opinion, suit against Voss, and an immediate broad injunction. Both direct Lumen toward platform reporting, demands, evidence development, and narrow potential claims against the former employee and Velvet while recognizing confidentiality and fee-shifting exposure.", "short_basis": "Both answers reject indiscriminate Friday litigation, platform claims, claims based on protected opinion, suit against Voss, and an immediate broad injunction. Both direct Lumen toward platform reporting, demands, evidence development, and narrow potential claims against the former employee and Velvet while…", "answer_a_was": "DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS", "answer_b_was": "Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_a_display": "DeepSeek V4-Flash-0731", "answer_b_display": "Qwen 3.5 27B", "winner": "TIE", "verdict_code": "TIE", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-1/verdicts/q17__DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS__vs__Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL.json" }, "qwen35-claude": { "key": "qwen35-claude", "label": "Qwen 3.5 vs Claude", "first": "qwen35", "second": "claude", "status": "frontier", "result": "Claude win", "short_result": "Claude win", "basis": "Answer A requires authentication of the Velvet message, admissible causation evidence, and pre-suit subpoenas before filing; Answer B instead recommends filing after an ignored demand and relying on discovery against Velvet. A special motion would stay that discovery, leaving Lumen unable to establish specific pecuniary loss or account coordination and exposing it to dismissal and mandatory fees. Exact difference. B proposes “Discovery Leverage” after suing Velvet; A says “preserve first, subpoena second, sue third” and file only after authentication and damages declarations exist. Different conduct. A’s reader develops admissible evidence before filing; B’s reader files after the demand is ignored and seeks the missing evidence through stayed discovery. Concrete consequence. B’s course can leave Lumen unable to defeat Velvet’s special motion, resulting in loss of the claims and a mandatory attorney-fee award; A’s course preserves the claims and avoids premature fee exposure. Record support. Rules 4–5 stay discovery and require admissible evidence without discovery; Rule 7 requires specific pecuniary loss, while the facts show only an aggregate decline and a leaked message of unestablished provenance. Material magnitude. Dismissal, loss of potentially valuable competitor claims, and mandatory defense fees materially worsen Lumen’s legal and financial position. Likelihood. B expressly recommends filing if Velvet ignores the demand even though the missing account linkage, authentication, and loss-causation evidence would predictably be contested in a special motion. No safe neutralization by ordinary verification. Rejecting B’s post-filing-discovery premise still leaves the reader to design the omitted pre-suit subpoena, authentication, and damages-evidence program before filing.", "short_basis": "Answer A requires authentication of the Velvet message, admissible causation evidence, and pre-suit subpoenas before filing; Answer B instead recommends filing after an ignored demand and relying on discovery against Velvet.", "answer_a_was": "claude-opus-5", "answer_b_was": "Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_a_display": "Claude Opus 5", "answer_b_display": "Qwen 3.5 27B", "winner": "claude-opus-5", "verdict_code": "A", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-1/verdicts/q17__Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__vs__claude-opus-5.json" } }, "rejected_points": { "qwen38": 2, "deepseek": 5, "claude": 7, "qwen35": 6 }, "delivery_filter_matter": false }, { "qid": "q18", "number": 18, "series": "Series 1", "title": "The Rock, the Tank, and the Clock", "category": "Environmental law", "matter_page": "matters/q18/index.html", "question_file": "evidence/series-1/questions/q18.md", "key_file": "evidence/series-1/keys/q18.md", "answers": { "deepseek": "evidence/series-1/answers/DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS/DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS__q18_r1.md", "claude": "evidence/series-1/answers/claude-opus-5/claude-opus-5__q18_r1.md", "qwen35": "evidence/series-1/answers/Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL/Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__q18_r1.md", "qwen38": "evidence/series-1/answers/Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL/Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__q18_r1.md" }, "reasoning": { "deepseek": "evidence/series-1/answers/DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS/DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS__q18_r1.reasoning.md", "claude": "evidence/series-1/answers/claude-opus-5/claude-opus-5__q18_r1.reasoning.md", "qwen35": "evidence/series-1/answers/Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL/Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__q18_r1.reasoning.md", "qwen38": "evidence/series-1/answers/Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL/Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__q18_r1.reasoning.md" }, "pairings": { "qwen38-claude": { "key": "qwen38-claude", "label": "Qwen 3.8 vs Claude", "first": "qwen38", "second": "claude", "status": "tie", "result": "Functional tie", "short_result": "Tie", "basis": "Both readers keep the crew working, respond within the cure period, preserve the differing-site-condition and waiver arguments, demand payment and proof of owner nonpayment, and timely record a lien limited to supportable amounts. Both then negotiate while preserving any mandatory arbitration or lien-enforcement rights, producing the same materially safe path.", "short_basis": "Both readers keep the crew working, respond within the cure period, preserve the differing-site-condition and waiver arguments, demand payment and proof of owner nonpayment, and timely record a lien limited to supportable amounts.", "answer_a_was": "Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_b_was": "claude-opus-5", "answer_a_display": "Qwen 3.8 27B", "answer_b_display": "Claude Opus 5", "winner": "TIE", "verdict_code": "TIE", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-1/verdicts/q18__Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__vs__claude-opus-5.json" }, "qwen38-deepseek": { "key": "qwen38-deepseek", "label": "Qwen 3.8 vs DeepSeek", "first": "qwen38", "second": "deepseek", "status": "tie", "result": "Functional tie", "short_result": "Tie", "basis": "Both answers direct Stonebriar to continue performance, respond promptly to the cure notice, preserve and categorize its claims, demand payment evidence, and timely record a lien limited to the supported $410,000. Their differences in filing sequence, active-interference characterization, and dispute-resolution timing do not put the client on materially different paths.", "short_basis": "Both answers direct Stonebriar to continue performance, respond promptly to the cure notice, preserve and categorize its claims, demand payment evidence, and timely record a lien limited to the supported $410,000.", "answer_a_was": "Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_b_was": "DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS", "answer_a_display": "Qwen 3.8 27B", "answer_b_display": "DeepSeek V4-Flash-0731", "winner": "TIE", "verdict_code": "TIE", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-1/verdicts/q18__DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS__vs__Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL.json" }, "qwen38-qwen35": { "key": "qwen38-qwen35", "label": "Qwen 3.8 vs Qwen 3.5", "first": "qwen38", "second": "qwen35", "status": "tie", "result": "Functional tie", "short_result": "Tie", "basis": "After ordinary verification, both readers continue performance, timely answer the cure notice, preserve the DSC and payment claims, and record a lien limited to the supported $410,000 before the jurisdictional deadline. Answer B’s unsupported recommendation to add unapproved DSC costs is rejected from the supplied rule and record without reconstructing the analysis because B separately identifies the $410,000 as the safe undisputed balance.", "short_basis": "After ordinary verification, both readers continue performance, timely answer the cure notice, preserve the DSC and payment claims, and record a lien limited to the supported $410,000 before the jurisdictional deadline.", "answer_a_was": "Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_b_was": "Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_a_display": "Qwen 3.8 27B", "answer_b_display": "Qwen 3.5 27B", "winner": "TIE", "verdict_code": "TIE", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-1/verdicts/q18__Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__vs__Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL.json" }, "deepseek-claude": { "key": "deepseek-claude", "label": "DeepSeek vs Claude", "first": "deepseek", "second": "claude", "status": "tie", "result": "Functional tie", "short_result": "Tie", "basis": "Both readers would keep Stonebriar performing, timely answer the cure notice, perfect the rock/tank and payment claims, demand proof concerning owner nonpayment, and record a conservatively calculated lien well before Day 19. Answer A’s unsupported expansions would be rejected through ordinary verification against the supplied lien rule and record, leaving the same materially safe course prescribed by Answer B.", "short_basis": "Both readers would keep Stonebriar performing, timely answer the cure notice, perfect the rock/tank and payment claims, demand proof concerning owner nonpayment, and record a conservatively calculated lien well before Day 19.", "answer_a_was": "claude-opus-5", "answer_b_was": "DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS", "answer_a_display": "Claude Opus 5", "answer_b_display": "DeepSeek V4-Flash-0731", "winner": "TIE", "verdict_code": "TIE", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-1/verdicts/q18__DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS__vs__claude-opus-5.json" }, "deepseek-qwen35": { "key": "deepseek-qwen35", "label": "DeepSeek vs Qwen 3.5", "first": "deepseek", "second": "qwen35", "status": "tie", "result": "Functional tie", "short_result": "Tie", "basis": "After ordinary verification, both readers follow the same material path: retain the crew, timely answer the cure notice, preserve the differing-site-conditions claim, demand payment information, and record a $410,000 lien before the jurisdictional deadline. Answer B’s unsupported addition of unapproved DSC costs is safely rejected from the supplied lien rule and figures without reconstructing the analysis.", "short_basis": "After ordinary verification, both readers follow the same material path: retain the crew, timely answer the cure notice, preserve the differing-site-conditions claim, demand payment information, and record a $410,000 lien before the jurisdictional deadline.", "answer_a_was": "DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS", "answer_b_was": "Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_a_display": "DeepSeek V4-Flash-0731", "answer_b_display": "Qwen 3.5 27B", "winner": "TIE", "verdict_code": "TIE", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-1/verdicts/q18__DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS__vs__Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL.json" }, "qwen35-claude": { "key": "qwen35-claude", "label": "Qwen 3.5 vs Claude", "first": "qwen35", "second": "claude", "status": "tie", "result": "Functional tie", "short_result": "Tie", "basis": "Both readers would timely cure while keeping the warranty crew working, supplement the claim and preserve waiver arguments, challenge the pay-if-paid predicate, and record a conservative lien before Day 90 while pursuing negotiation and any required ADR. After unsupported lien additions and active-interference assertions are rejected, both readers occupy the same materially safe position: lien the documented $410,000 plus only actually approved changes, preserve disputed damages outside the lien, and do not suspend performance.", "short_basis": "Both readers would timely cure while keeping the warranty crew working, supplement the claim and preserve waiver arguments, challenge the pay-if-paid predicate, and record a conservative lien before Day 90 while pursuing negotiation and any required ADR.", "answer_a_was": "Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_b_was": "claude-opus-5", "answer_a_display": "Qwen 3.5 27B", "answer_b_display": "Claude Opus 5", "winner": "TIE", "verdict_code": "TIE", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-1/verdicts/q18__Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__vs__claude-opus-5.json" } }, "rejected_points": { "qwen38": 2, "deepseek": 1, "claude": 11, "qwen35": 7 }, "delivery_filter_matter": false }, { "qid": "q19", "number": 19, "series": "Series 1", "title": "The Second Codicil", "category": "Trusts and estates", "matter_page": "matters/q19/index.html", "question_file": "evidence/series-1/questions/q19.md", "key_file": "evidence/series-1/keys/q19.md", "answers": { "deepseek": "evidence/series-1/answers/DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS/DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS__q19_r1.md", "claude": "evidence/series-1/answers/claude-opus-5/claude-opus-5__q19_r1.md", "qwen35": "evidence/series-1/answers/Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL/Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__q19_r1.md", "qwen38": "evidence/series-1/answers/Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL/Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__q19_r1.md" }, "reasoning": { "deepseek": "evidence/series-1/answers/DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS/DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS__q19_r1.reasoning.md", "claude": "evidence/series-1/answers/claude-opus-5/claude-opus-5__q19_r1.reasoning.md", "qwen35": "evidence/series-1/answers/Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL/Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__q19_r1.reasoning.md", "qwen38": "evidence/series-1/answers/Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL/Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__q19_r1.reasoning.md" }, "pairings": { "qwen38-claude": { "key": "qwen38-claude", "label": "Qwen 3.8 vs Claude", "first": "qwen38", "second": "claude", "status": "tie", "result": "Functional tie", "short_result": "Tie", "basis": "After ordinary verification, both readers preserve the evidence, pursue the brokerage-account and exploitation claims without triggering the no-contest clause, seek mediation, and evaluate a timely codicil contest based principally on undue influence. The record supplies neither litigation deadlines and costs nor reliable success probabilities establishing that A’s staged filing or B’s earlier codicil filing produces a materially better outcome.", "short_basis": "After ordinary verification, both readers preserve the evidence, pursue the brokerage-account and exploitation claims without triggering the no-contest clause, seek mediation, and evaluate a timely codicil contest based principally on undue influence.", "answer_a_was": "Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_b_was": "claude-opus-5", "answer_a_display": "Qwen 3.8 27B", "answer_b_display": "Claude Opus 5", "winner": "TIE", "verdict_code": "TIE", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-1/verdicts/q19__Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__vs__claude-opus-5.json" }, "qwen38-deepseek": { "key": "qwen38-deepseek", "label": "Qwen 3.8 vs DeepSeek", "first": "qwen38", "second": "deepseek", "status": "local", "result": "Qwen 3.8 win", "short_result": "Qwen 3.8 win", "basis": "Answer A recommends pursuing the nonprobate account and exploitation claims first while reserving the codicil contest; Answer B recommends a combined action if mediation fails. The combined filing immediately subjects Claire’s existing $675,000 residue to a no-contest forfeiture determination, whereas the staged approach pursues the $350,000 account upside without that exposure and preserves the codicil claim.", "short_basis": "Answer A recommends pursuing the nonprobate account and exploitation claims first while reserving the codicil contest; Answer B recommends a combined action if mediation fails.", "answer_a_was": "Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_b_was": "DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS", "answer_a_display": "Qwen 3.8 27B", "answer_b_display": "DeepSeek V4-Flash-0731", "winner": "Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "verdict_code": "A", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-1/verdicts/q19__DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS__vs__Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL.json" }, "qwen38-qwen35": { "key": "qwen38-qwen35", "label": "Qwen 3.8 vs Qwen 3.5", "first": "qwen38", "second": "qwen35", "status": "local", "result": "Qwen 3.8 win", "short_result": "Qwen 3.8 win", "basis": "Answer A recommends immediately contesting the codicil while assuring Claire that proceeding correctly effectively protects her existing $675,000; Answer B instead first pursues the independently actionable brokerage transfer, which cannot trigger the clause as written. That sequencing preserves Claire’s current inheritance from forfeiture while pursuing a $350,000 increase and developing evidence or settlement leverage before deciding whether to expose the $675,000 to a codicil contest.", "short_basis": "Answer A recommends immediately contesting the codicil while assuring Claire that proceeding correctly effectively protects her existing $675,000; Answer B instead first pursues the independently actionable brokerage transfer, which cannot trigger the clause as written.", "answer_a_was": "Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_b_was": "Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_a_display": "Qwen 3.5 27B", "answer_b_display": "Qwen 3.8 27B", "winner": "Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "verdict_code": "B", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-1/verdicts/q19__Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__vs__Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL.json" }, "deepseek-claude": { "key": "deepseek-claude", "label": "DeepSeek vs Claude", "first": "deepseek", "second": "claude", "status": "tie", "result": "Functional tie", "short_result": "Tie", "basis": "Both answers place Claire on the same material path: preserve evidence, challenge the POD transfer without forfeiture exposure, document probable cause before contesting the codicil, pursue exploitation remedies, and seek a global mediated settlement. Both correctly calculate the gross outcomes and identify undue influence and the convenience-account theory as the principal claims; their unsupported numerical forecasts and ancillary procedural assertions do not establish a different client outcome.", "short_basis": "Both answers place Claire on the same material path: preserve evidence, challenge the POD transfer without forfeiture exposure, document probable cause before contesting the codicil, pursue exploitation remedies, and seek a global mediated settlement.", "answer_a_was": "DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS", "answer_b_was": "claude-opus-5", "answer_a_display": "DeepSeek V4-Flash-0731", "answer_b_display": "Claude Opus 5", "winner": "TIE", "verdict_code": "TIE", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-1/verdicts/q19__DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS__vs__claude-opus-5.json" }, "deepseek-qwen35": { "key": "deepseek-qwen35", "label": "DeepSeek vs Qwen 3.5", "first": "deepseek", "second": "qwen35", "status": "tie", "result": "Functional tie", "short_result": "Tie", "basis": "Both answers place Claire on the same material path: preserve and obtain the evidence, pursue the strong and no-contest-safe POD challenge, assert the codicil challenge with documented probable cause, use the exploitation claim as settlement leverage, and seek a global resolution before or alongside litigation. Their supported outcome figures are materially consistent, and the disputed estimates and characterizations do not establish different client conduct or consequences.", "short_basis": "Both answers place Claire on the same material path: preserve and obtain the evidence, pursue the strong and no-contest-safe POD challenge, assert the codicil challenge with documented probable cause, use the exploitation claim as settlement leverage, and seek a global resolution before or alongside…", "answer_a_was": "Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_b_was": "DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS", "answer_a_display": "Qwen 3.5 27B", "answer_b_display": "DeepSeek V4-Flash-0731", "winner": "TIE", "verdict_code": "TIE", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-1/verdicts/q19__DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS__vs__Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL.json" }, "qwen35-claude": { "key": "qwen35-claude", "label": "Qwen 3.5 vs Claude", "first": "qwen35", "second": "claude", "status": "tie", "result": "Functional tie", "short_result": "Tie", "basis": "Both answers direct Claire to preserve the evidence, challenge the codicil primarily for undue influence, pursue the POD and exploitation claims, document probable cause, coordinate with Erik, and seek a global settlement. Their differences in confidence, numerical assumptions, procedural detail, and claim characterization do not establish that a competent professional would take a materially different path or produce a different client outcome.", "short_basis": "Both answers direct Claire to preserve the evidence, challenge the codicil primarily for undue influence, pursue the POD and exploitation claims, document probable cause, coordinate with Erik, and seek a global settlement.", "answer_a_was": "claude-opus-5", "answer_b_was": "Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_a_display": "Claude Opus 5", "answer_b_display": "Qwen 3.5 27B", "winner": "TIE", "verdict_code": "TIE", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-1/verdicts/q19__Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__vs__claude-opus-5.json" } }, "rejected_points": { "qwen38": 3, "deepseek": 8, "claude": 12, "qwen35": 9 }, "delivery_filter_matter": false }, { "qid": "q20", "number": 20, "series": "Series 1", "title": "The Hot ARR Deck", "category": "Securities and finance", "matter_page": "matters/q20/index.html", "question_file": "evidence/series-1/questions/q20.md", "key_file": "evidence/series-1/keys/q20.md", "answers": { "deepseek": "evidence/series-1/answers/DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS/DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS__q20_r1.md", "claude": "evidence/series-1/answers/claude-opus-5/claude-opus-5__q20_r1.md", "qwen35": "evidence/series-1/answers/Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL/Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__q20_r1.md", "qwen38": "evidence/series-1/answers/Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL/Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__q20_r1.md" }, "reasoning": { "deepseek": "evidence/series-1/answers/DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS/DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS__q20_r1.reasoning.md", "claude": "evidence/series-1/answers/claude-opus-5/claude-opus-5__q20_r1.reasoning.md", "qwen35": "evidence/series-1/answers/Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL/Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__q20_r1.reasoning.md", "qwen38": "evidence/series-1/answers/Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL/Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__q20_r1.reasoning.md" }, "pairings": { "qwen38-claude": { "key": "qwen38-claude", "label": "Qwen 3.8 vs Claude", "first": "qwen38", "second": "claude", "status": "tie", "result": "Functional tie", "short_result": "Tie", "basis": "Both answers direct Northgate to halt the existing process, preserve evidence, correct ARR and NRR, disclose the non-renewal, remediate the anchor through rescission or amended terms with a release, freeze the secondary, and negotiate any financing only after complete disclosure. Competent counsel following either answer reaches the same materially safe path for the company and board.", "short_basis": "Both answers direct Northgate to halt the existing process, preserve evidence, correct ARR and NRR, disclose the non-renewal, remediate the anchor through rescission or amended terms with a release, freeze the secondary, and negotiate any financing only after complete disclosure.", "answer_a_was": "claude-opus-5", "answer_b_was": "Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_a_display": "Claude Opus 5", "answer_b_display": "Qwen 3.8 27B", "winner": "TIE", "verdict_code": "TIE", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-1/verdicts/q20__Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__vs__claude-opus-5.json" }, "qwen38-deepseek": { "key": "qwen38-deepseek", "label": "Qwen 3.8 vs DeepSeek", "first": "qwen38", "second": "deepseek", "status": "local", "result": "Qwen 3.8 win", "short_result": "Qwen 3.8 win", "basis": "Answer A uniquely requires a negotiated release whether the anchor accepts rescission or continues under amended terms. Answer B permits reaffirmation after corrected disclosure and repricing without requiring release, leaving the company exposed to the anchor’s already-accrued rescission or damages claim despite completing the remediation.", "short_basis": "Answer A uniquely requires a negotiated release whether the anchor accepts rescission or continues under amended terms. Answer B permits reaffirmation after corrected disclosure and repricing without requiring release, leaving the company exposed to the anchor’s already-accrued rescission or damages claim…", "answer_a_was": "Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_b_was": "DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS", "answer_a_display": "Qwen 3.8 27B", "answer_b_display": "DeepSeek V4-Flash-0731", "winner": "Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "verdict_code": "A", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-1/verdicts/q20__DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS__vs__Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL.json" }, "qwen38-qwen35": { "key": "qwen38-qwen35", "label": "Qwen 3.8 vs Qwen 3.5", "first": "qwen38", "second": "qwen35", "status": "local", "result": "Qwen 3.8 win", "short_result": "Qwen 3.8 win", "basis": "Answer A requires any anchor investor continuation to include an amended subscription and release of pre-correction claims, while Answer B’s proposed “Cure Agreement” instead says the Company warrants no future claims—although the relevant rescission and damages claims belong to the anchor. Following B’s proposed remediation could therefore leave Northgate exposed to an $8 million rescission claim despite allowing the investment to remain outstanding. Exact difference. A requires “an amended subscription agreement” and “a release of claims”; B proposes that the “Company warrants no future claims regarding prior metrics.” Different conduct. A’s reader obtains an anchor release before retaining the investment; B’s reader may retain the investment after correction and renegotiation without obtaining the anchor’s release. Concrete consequence. Under B, the anchor retains its record-supported rescission or damages claim concerning the $8 million investment; under A, that claim is resolved as part of the negotiated continuation. Record support. The anchor signed, wired $8 million based on the deck, and was already irrevocably committed, so the supplied rule expressly provides that later correction cannot cut off its reliance. Material magnitude. An unresolved right to seek rescission of an $8 million investment materially affects Northgate’s legal and financial position. Likelihood. A rational company seeking to retain the anchor’s funds would follow the proposed continuation documents; whether those documents obtain the investor’s release immediately determines whether the existing claim remains. No safe neutralization by ordinary verification. Rejecting B’s internally reversed warranty does not supply the omitted investor release; counsel would have to reconstruct the remediation term needed to extinguish the anchor’s existing claim.", "short_basis": "Answer A requires any anchor investor continuation to include an amended subscription and release of pre-correction claims, while Answer B’s proposed “Cure Agreement” instead says the Company warrants no future claims—although the relevant rescission and damages claims belong to the anchor.", "answer_a_was": "Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_b_was": "Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_a_display": "Qwen 3.8 27B", "answer_b_display": "Qwen 3.5 27B", "winner": "Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "verdict_code": "A", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-1/verdicts/q20__Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__vs__Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL.json" }, "deepseek-claude": { "key": "deepseek-claude", "label": "DeepSeek vs Claude", "first": "deepseek", "second": "claude", "status": "tie", "result": "Functional tie", "short_result": "Tie", "basis": "Both answers direct the board to stop the existing closing, withdraw and correct the deck, disclose the non-renewal, offer the anchor rescission or a fully informed renegotiation, suspend the founder secondary, and reprice or restructure before proceeding. Their readers therefore reach the same materially safe path for the company, investors, founder, and directors.", "short_basis": "Both answers direct the board to stop the existing closing, withdraw and correct the deck, disclose the non-renewal, offer the anchor rescission or a fully informed renegotiation, suspend the founder secondary, and reprice or restructure before proceeding.", "answer_a_was": "claude-opus-5", "answer_b_was": "DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS", "answer_a_display": "Claude Opus 5", "answer_b_display": "DeepSeek V4-Flash-0731", "winner": "TIE", "verdict_code": "TIE", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-1/verdicts/q20__DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS__vs__claude-opus-5.json" }, "deepseek-qwen35": { "key": "deepseek-qwen35", "label": "DeepSeek vs Qwen 3.5", "first": "deepseek", "second": "qwen35", "status": "tie", "result": "Functional tie", "short_result": "Tie", "basis": "Both answers direct the board to halt the current closing, withdraw and correct the deck, disclose the $10.5M ARR, 111% retention, and customer non-renewal, offer anchor remediation, suspend the founder secondary, and reprice or restructure before proceeding. Their differences do not put the company, investors, or directors on materially different legal or operational paths.", "short_basis": "Both answers direct the board to halt the current closing, withdraw and correct the deck, disclose the $10.5M ARR, 111% retention, and customer non-renewal, offer anchor remediation, suspend the founder secondary, and reprice or restructure before proceeding.", "answer_a_was": "Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_b_was": "DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS", "answer_a_display": "Qwen 3.5 27B", "answer_b_display": "DeepSeek V4-Flash-0731", "winner": "TIE", "verdict_code": "TIE", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-1/verdicts/q20__DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS__vs__Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL.json" }, "qwen35-claude": { "key": "qwen35-claude", "label": "Qwen 3.5 vs Claude", "first": "qwen35", "second": "claude", "status": "tie", "result": "Functional tie", "short_result": "Tie", "basis": "Both answers put counsel and the board on the same material path: stop reliance on the existing deck, disclose the corrected ARR, NRR, and customer non-renewal before the unsigned investors commit, offer the anchor rescission or informed renegotiation, halt the founder secondary absent full disclosure, reject the CEO’s proposal, and delay/reprice the financing. Answer B adds procedures and commercial predictions, but none demonstrates a materially different client outcome on the supplied record.", "short_basis": "Both answers put counsel and the board on the same material path: stop reliance on the existing deck, disclose the corrected ARR, NRR, and customer non-renewal before the unsigned investors commit, offer the anchor rescission or informed renegotiation, halt the founder secondary absent full disclosure…", "answer_a_was": "Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_b_was": "claude-opus-5", "answer_a_display": "Qwen 3.5 27B", "answer_b_display": "Claude Opus 5", "winner": "TIE", "verdict_code": "TIE", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-1/verdicts/q20__Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__vs__claude-opus-5.json" } }, "rejected_points": { "qwen38": 3, "deepseek": 8, "claude": 11, "qwen35": 7 }, "delivery_filter_matter": false }, { "qid": "q21", "number": 21, "series": "Series 2", "title": "The Plea Offer Before Dawn", "category": "Criminal law", "matter_page": "matters/q21/index.html", "question_file": "evidence/series-2/questions/q21.md", "key_file": "evidence/series-2/keys/q21.md", "answers": { "deepseek": "evidence/series-2/answers/DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS/DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS__q21_r1.md", "claude": "evidence/series-2/answers/claude-opus-5/claude-opus-5__q21_r1.md", "qwen35": "evidence/series-2/answers/Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL/Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__q21_r1.md", "qwen38": "evidence/series-2/answers/Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL/Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__q21_r1.md" }, "reasoning": { "deepseek": "evidence/series-2/answers/DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS/DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS__q21_r1.reasoning.md", "claude": "evidence/series-2/answers/claude-opus-5/claude-opus-5__q21_r1.reasoning.md", "qwen35": "evidence/series-2/answers/Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL/Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__q21_r1.reasoning.md", "qwen38": "evidence/series-2/answers/Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL/Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__q21_r1.reasoning.md" }, "pairings": { "qwen38-claude": { "key": "qwen38-claude", "label": "Qwen 3.8 vs Claude", "first": "qwen38", "second": "claude", "status": "tie", "result": "Functional tie", "short_result": "Tie", "basis": "Both answers place Malik on the same material path: accept the plea if avoiding the 55% risk of 76–100 additional months controls, while recognizing that trial preserves the stated chances of avoiding robbery and the three-year license suspension. Both provide the correct ranges, probabilities, expected-custody calculations, collateral consequences, deadline, and personal-choice requirement.", "short_basis": "Both answers place Malik on the same material path: accept the plea if avoiding the 55% risk of 76–100 additional months controls, while recognizing that trial preserves the stated chances of avoiding robbery and the three-year license suspension.", "answer_a_was": "claude-opus-5", "answer_b_was": "Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_a_display": "Claude Opus 5", "answer_b_display": "Qwen 3.8 27B", "winner": "TIE", "verdict_code": "TIE", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-2/verdicts/q21__Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__vs__claude-opus-5.json" }, "qwen38-deepseek": { "key": "qwen38-deepseek", "label": "Qwen 3.8 vs DeepSeek", "first": "qwen38", "second": "deepseek", "status": "tie", "result": "Functional tie", "short_result": "Tie", "basis": "Both answers place Malik on the same materially correct path: they accurately present the plea and trial branches, calculate the expected custody ranges, explain the license consequences, recommend accepting the plea before 4:00 p.m. given his stated concern, and preserve his personal choice. No demonstrated difference would cause competent counsel or Malik to act differently or experience a different outcome.", "short_basis": "Both answers place Malik on the same materially correct path: they accurately present the plea and trial branches, calculate the expected custody ranges, explain the license consequences, recommend accepting the plea before 4:00 p.m. given his stated concern, and preserve his personal choice.", "answer_a_was": "DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS", "answer_b_was": "Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_a_display": "DeepSeek V4-Flash-0731", "answer_b_display": "Qwen 3.8 27B", "winner": "TIE", "verdict_code": "TIE", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-2/verdicts/q21__DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS__vs__Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL.json" }, "qwen38-qwen35": { "key": "qwen38-qwen35", "label": "Qwen 3.8 vs Qwen 3.5", "first": "qwen38", "second": "qwen35", "status": "tie", "result": "Functional tie", "short_result": "Tie", "basis": "Both answers provide the same custody ranges, probabilities, license consequences, expected-value calculations, risk comparison, recommendation to accept the plea given Malik’s stated limit, and instruction that Malik must personally decide before 4:00 p.m. Ordinary verification rejects Answer A’s two inconsistent characterizations without changing that materially correct and safe path.", "short_basis": "Both answers provide the same custody ranges, probabilities, license consequences, expected-value calculations, risk comparison, recommendation to accept the plea given Malik’s stated limit, and instruction that Malik must personally decide before 4:00 p.m.", "answer_a_was": "Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_b_was": "Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_a_display": "Qwen 3.5 27B", "answer_b_display": "Qwen 3.8 27B", "winner": "TIE", "verdict_code": "TIE", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-2/verdicts/q21__Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__vs__Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL.json" }, "deepseek-claude": { "key": "deepseek-claude", "label": "DeepSeek vs Claude", "first": "deepseek", "second": "claude", "status": "tie", "result": "Functional tie", "short_result": "Tie", "basis": "Both answers put Malik on the same materially correct path: understand the specified plea and trial outcomes, receive a recommendation to accept the plea, and personally decide before 4:00 p.m. Answer A’s unsupported personal-admission condition and possible-extension comment are safely rejected from the complete supplied record without altering that path.", "short_basis": "Both answers put Malik on the same materially correct path: understand the specified plea and trial outcomes, receive a recommendation to accept the plea, and personally decide before 4:00 p.m.", "answer_a_was": "claude-opus-5", "answer_b_was": "DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS", "answer_a_display": "Claude Opus 5", "answer_b_display": "DeepSeek V4-Flash-0731", "winner": "TIE", "verdict_code": "TIE", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-2/verdicts/q21__DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS__vs__claude-opus-5.json" }, "deepseek-qwen35": { "key": "deepseek-qwen35", "label": "DeepSeek vs Qwen 3.5", "first": "deepseek", "second": "qwen35", "status": "tie", "result": "Functional tie", "short_result": "Tie", "basis": "Both answers lead Malik to the same materially correct path: understand the plea and trial ranges, probabilities, custody credits, license consequences, accept the plea recommendation, and personally authorize acceptance before 4:00 p.m. No demonstrated difference would cause competent counsel or Malik to act differently or produce a different material outcome.", "short_basis": "Both answers lead Malik to the same materially correct path: understand the plea and trial ranges, probabilities, custody credits, license consequences, accept the plea recommendation, and personally authorize acceptance before 4:00 p.m.", "answer_a_was": "Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_b_was": "DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS", "answer_a_display": "Qwen 3.5 27B", "answer_b_display": "DeepSeek V4-Flash-0731", "winner": "TIE", "verdict_code": "TIE", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-2/verdicts/q21__DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS__vs__Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL.json" }, "qwen35-claude": { "key": "qwen35-claude", "label": "Qwen 3.5 vs Claude", "first": "qwen35", "second": "claude", "status": "tie", "result": "Functional tie", "short_result": "Tie", "basis": "Both answers lead Malik to the same materially correct and safe path: they accurately state the plea and trial ranges, probabilities, credits, license consequences, and expected-custody ranges, then recommend accepting the plea while preserving Malik’s personal choice before 4:00 p.m. The disputed statements are either facially inconsistent with the answers’ own correct figures or unsupported additions that ordinary verification would reject without changing that path.", "short_basis": "Both answers lead Malik to the same materially correct and safe path: they accurately state the plea and trial ranges, probabilities, credits, license consequences, and expected-custody ranges, then recommend accepting the plea while preserving Malik’s personal choice before 4:00 p.m.", "answer_a_was": "Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_b_was": "claude-opus-5", "answer_a_display": "Qwen 3.5 27B", "answer_b_display": "Claude Opus 5", "winner": "TIE", "verdict_code": "TIE", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-2/verdicts/q21__Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__vs__claude-opus-5.json" } }, "rejected_points": { "qwen38": 1, "deepseek": 0, "claude": 5, "qwen35": 4 }, "delivery_filter_matter": false }, { "qid": "q22", "number": 22, "series": "Series 2", "title": "The Proffer Room", "category": "Criminal law", "matter_page": "matters/q22/index.html", "question_file": "evidence/series-2/questions/q22.md", "key_file": "evidence/series-2/keys/q22.md", "answers": { "deepseek": "evidence/series-2/answers/DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS/DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS__q22_r1.md", "claude": "evidence/series-2/answers/claude-opus-5/claude-opus-5__q22_r1.md", "qwen35": "evidence/series-2/answers/Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL/Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__q22_r1.md", "qwen38": "evidence/series-2/answers/Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL/Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__q22_r1.md" }, "reasoning": { "deepseek": "evidence/series-2/answers/DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS/DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS__q22_r1.reasoning.md", "qwen35": "evidence/series-2/answers/Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL/Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__q22_r1.reasoning.md", "qwen38": "evidence/series-2/answers/Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL/Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__q22_r1.reasoning.md" }, "pairings": { "qwen38-claude": { "key": "qwen38-claude", "label": "Qwen 3.8 vs Claude", "first": "qwen38", "second": "claude", "status": "tie", "result": "Functional tie", "short_result": "Tie", "basis": "Both answers direct Lena not to attend tomorrow, to seek postponement while obtaining written use restrictions, cooperation terms, participant-status information, and a defined subject list, and to decline if adequate protections are refused. Both also preserve records and prohibit Lena from contacting Omar or other potential witnesses, leaving her on the same materially safe legal and procedural path.", "short_basis": "Both answers direct Lena not to attend tomorrow, to seek postponement while obtaining written use restrictions, cooperation terms, participant-status information, and a defined subject list, and to decline if adequate protections are refused.", "answer_a_was": "claude-opus-5", "answer_b_was": "Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_a_display": "Claude Opus 5", "answer_b_display": "Qwen 3.8 27B", "winner": "TIE", "verdict_code": "TIE", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-2/verdicts/q22__Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__vs__claude-opus-5.json" }, "qwen38-deepseek": { "key": "qwen38-deepseek", "label": "Qwen 3.8 vs DeepSeek", "first": "qwen38", "second": "deepseek", "status": "tie", "result": "Functional tie", "short_result": "Tie", "basis": "Both answers place Lena on the same materially correct and safe path: do not attend under the current agreement, seek postponement and written use restrictions and status information, and decline if the deficiencies remain. Both accurately identify the limited direct-use protection, unrestricted derivative and rebuttal exposure, agency-sharing and unknown-offense risks, absence of guaranteed cooperation credit, and prohibition on Lena contacting potential witnesses.", "short_basis": "Both answers place Lena on the same materially correct and safe path: do not attend under the current agreement, seek postponement and written use restrictions and status information, and decline if the deficiencies remain.", "answer_a_was": "Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_b_was": "DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS", "answer_a_display": "Qwen 3.8 27B", "answer_b_display": "DeepSeek V4-Flash-0731", "winner": "TIE", "verdict_code": "TIE", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-2/verdicts/q22__DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS__vs__Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL.json" }, "qwen38-qwen35": { "key": "qwen38-qwen35", "label": "Qwen 3.8 vs Qwen 3.5", "first": "qwen38", "second": "qwen35", "status": "tie", "result": "Functional tie", "short_result": "Tie", "basis": "Both answers direct Lena not to attend tomorrow under the current agreement, to seek postponement while obtaining written status information and narrower derivative-use and rebuttal terms, and to decline if the decisive protections remain absent. Both also reject assumed cooperation credit, prohibit Lena from contacting Omar, and preserve the same materially safe course while records remain secured and no misconduct is ongoing.", "short_basis": "Both answers direct Lena not to attend tomorrow under the current agreement, to seek postponement while obtaining written status information and narrower derivative-use and rebuttal terms, and to decline if the decisive protections remain absent.", "answer_a_was": "Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_b_was": "Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_a_display": "Qwen 3.8 27B", "answer_b_display": "Qwen 3.5 27B", "winner": "TIE", "verdict_code": "TIE", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-2/verdicts/q22__Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__vs__Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL.json" }, "deepseek-claude": { "key": "deepseek-claude", "label": "DeepSeek vs Claude", "first": "deepseek", "second": "claude", "status": "tie", "result": "Functional tie", "short_result": "Tie", "basis": "Both answers direct Lena to postpone tomorrow’s proffer because the narrow direct-use protection leaves derivative use, broad rebuttal, agency sharing, uncharged-conduct exposure, and no guaranteed cooperation benefit, while Omar’s status and the intended subjects remain unknown. Both recommend obtaining written protections and status information through lawful channels and declining if sufficiently safe terms cannot be secured.", "short_basis": "Both answers direct Lena to postpone tomorrow’s proffer because the narrow direct-use protection leaves derivative use, broad rebuttal, agency sharing, uncharged-conduct exposure, and no guaranteed cooperation benefit, while Omar’s status and the intended subjects remain unknown.", "answer_a_was": "claude-opus-5", "answer_b_was": "DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS", "answer_a_display": "Claude Opus 5", "answer_b_display": "DeepSeek V4-Flash-0731", "winner": "TIE", "verdict_code": "TIE", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-2/verdicts/q22__DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS__vs__claude-opus-5.json" }, "deepseek-qwen35": { "key": "deepseek-qwen35", "label": "DeepSeek vs Qwen 3.5", "first": "deepseek", "second": "qwen35", "status": "tie", "result": "Functional tie", "short_result": "Tie", "basis": "Both answers put Lena on the same materially correct and safe path: postpone tomorrow’s proffer, preserve records, avoid contacting potential witnesses, seek narrower written use provisions and nonprivileged status/topic information, and decline if adequate terms cannot be obtained. Their differences in proposed language and additional conditions do not establish any different client outcome on the supplied record.", "short_basis": "Both answers put Lena on the same materially correct and safe path: postpone tomorrow’s proffer, preserve records, avoid contacting potential witnesses, seek narrower written use provisions and nonprivileged status/topic information, and decline if adequate terms cannot be obtained.", "answer_a_was": "Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_b_was": "DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS", "answer_a_display": "Qwen 3.5 27B", "answer_b_display": "DeepSeek V4-Flash-0731", "winner": "TIE", "verdict_code": "TIE", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-2/verdicts/q22__DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS__vs__Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL.json" }, "qwen35-claude": { "key": "qwen35-claude", "label": "Qwen 3.5 vs Claude", "first": "qwen35", "second": "claude", "status": "tie", "result": "Functional tie", "short_result": "Tie", "basis": "Both answers direct Lena to postpone tomorrow’s proffer, seek narrower written derivative-use and rebuttal terms, obtain participant-status and topic information lawfully, and preserve records without contacting potential witnesses. Both leave her on the same materially safe path: no proffer unless the missing protections, information, and credible cooperation framework make participation rational.", "short_basis": "Both answers direct Lena to postpone tomorrow’s proffer, seek narrower written derivative-use and rebuttal terms, obtain participant-status and topic information lawfully, and preserve records without contacting potential witnesses.", "answer_a_was": "claude-opus-5", "answer_b_was": "Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_a_display": "Claude Opus 5", "answer_b_display": "Qwen 3.5 27B", "winner": "TIE", "verdict_code": "TIE", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-2/verdicts/q22__Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__vs__claude-opus-5.json" } }, "rejected_points": { "qwen38": 3, "deepseek": 3, "claude": 12, "qwen35": 6 }, "delivery_filter_matter": false }, { "qid": "q23", "number": 23, "series": "Series 2", "title": "Two Forums, One Witness", "category": "Parallel proceedings", "matter_page": "matters/q23/index.html", "question_file": "evidence/series-2/questions/q23.md", "key_file": "evidence/series-2/keys/q23.md", "answers": { "deepseek": "evidence/series-2/answers/DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS/DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS__q23_r1.md", "claude": "evidence/series-2/answers/claude-opus-5/claude-opus-5__q23_r1.md", "qwen35": "evidence/series-2/answers/Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL/Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__q23_r1.md", "qwen38": "evidence/series-2/answers/Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL/Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__q23_r1.md" }, "reasoning": { "deepseek": "evidence/series-2/answers/DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS/DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS__q23_r1.reasoning.md", "claude": "evidence/series-2/answers/claude-opus-5/claude-opus-5__q23_r1.reasoning.md", "qwen35": "evidence/series-2/answers/Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL/Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__q23_r1.reasoning.md", "qwen38": "evidence/series-2/answers/Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL/Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__q23_r1.reasoning.md" }, "pairings": { "qwen38-claude": { "key": "qwen38-claude", "label": "Qwen 3.8 vs Claude", "first": "qwen38", "second": "claude", "status": "tie", "result": "Functional tie", "short_result": "Tie", "basis": "Both answers place Bexley on the same material path: preserve records immediately, retain separate counsel for exposed individuals, timely produce nonprivileged corporate records in both forums, withhold the privileged memorandum, reject the proposed declaration, request the prosecutor’s position, and seek targeted civil sequencing without missing existing deadlines. If relief is denied, both preserve Nora’s personal invocation rights while timely filing Bexley’s civil opposition and grand-jury response.", "short_basis": "Both answers place Bexley on the same material path: preserve records immediately, retain separate counsel for exposed individuals, timely produce nonprivileged corporate records in both forums, withhold the privileged memorandum, reject the proposed declaration, request the prosecutor’s position, and seek…", "answer_a_was": "Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_b_was": "claude-opus-5", "answer_a_display": "Qwen 3.8 27B", "answer_b_display": "Claude Opus 5", "winner": "TIE", "verdict_code": "TIE", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-2/verdicts/q23__Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__vs__claude-opus-5.json" }, "qwen38-deepseek": { "key": "qwen38-deepseek", "label": "Qwen 3.8 vs DeepSeek", "first": "qwen38", "second": "deepseek", "status": "tie", "result": "Functional tie", "short_result": "Tie", "basis": "Both answers direct Bexley to preserve records, obtain separate counsel for exposed individuals, timely produce nonprivileged corporate records in both forums, withhold the privileged memorandum, reject the proposed declaration, and seek narrowly tailored civil relief without awaiting prosecutorial clarification. Competent professionals receiving either answer would follow the same materially safe path and meet the same deadlines without demonstrated waiver, default, false assurance, or loss of individual Fifth Amendment protection.", "short_basis": "Both answers direct Bexley to preserve records, obtain separate counsel for exposed individuals, timely produce nonprivileged corporate records in both forums, withhold the privileged memorandum, reject the proposed declaration, and seek narrowly tailored civil relief without awaiting prosecutorial…", "answer_a_was": "DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS", "answer_b_was": "Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_a_display": "DeepSeek V4-Flash-0731", "answer_b_display": "Qwen 3.8 27B", "winner": "TIE", "verdict_code": "TIE", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-2/verdicts/q23__DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS__vs__Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL.json" }, "qwen38-qwen35": { "key": "qwen38-qwen35", "label": "Qwen 3.8 vs Qwen 3.5", "first": "qwen38", "second": "qwen35", "status": "tie", "result": "Functional tie", "short_result": "Tie", "basis": "Both answers put Bexley on the same material path: immediate preservation, conflict management and separate counsel, timely nonprivileged productions, a targeted civil stay request, rejection of the memorandum exchange and proposed declaration, and individual invocation where necessary. The differences in timing and detail do not establish a concrete, record-supported change in either forum’s outcome.", "short_basis": "Both answers put Bexley on the same material path: immediate preservation, conflict management and separate counsel, timely nonprivileged productions, a targeted civil stay request, rejection of the memorandum exchange and proposed declaration, and individual invocation where necessary.", "answer_a_was": "Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_b_was": "Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_a_display": "Qwen 3.5 27B", "answer_b_display": "Qwen 3.8 27B", "winner": "TIE", "verdict_code": "TIE", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-2/verdicts/q23__Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__vs__Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL.json" }, "deepseek-claude": { "key": "deepseek-claude", "label": "DeepSeek vs Claude", "first": "deepseek", "second": "claude", "status": "tie", "result": "Functional tie", "short_result": "Tie", "basis": "Both answers put Bexley on the same materially correct path: preserve and collect records, obtain separate counsel for exposed individuals, timely produce nonprivileged corporate records in both forums, protect the memorandum, seek a narrow civil stay, reject Nora’s proposed declaration, and meet all deadlines. Their differences in governance, collection mechanics, motion details, and ancillary precautions do not establish a different concrete client outcome.", "short_basis": "Both answers put Bexley on the same materially correct path: preserve and collect records, obtain separate counsel for exposed individuals, timely produce nonprivileged corporate records in both forums, protect the memorandum, seek a narrow civil stay, reject Nora’s proposed declaration, and meet all…", "answer_a_was": "claude-opus-5", "answer_b_was": "DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS", "answer_a_display": "Claude Opus 5", "answer_b_display": "DeepSeek V4-Flash-0731", "winner": "TIE", "verdict_code": "TIE", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-2/verdicts/q23__DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS__vs__claude-opus-5.json" }, "deepseek-qwen35": { "key": "deepseek-qwen35", "label": "DeepSeek vs Qwen 3.5", "first": "deepseek", "second": "qwen35", "status": "tie", "result": "Functional tie", "short_result": "Tie", "basis": "Both answers place Bexley on the same materially safe path: preserve records, retain separate counsel, produce nonprivileged corporate records by both deadlines, withhold the memorandum, seek targeted civil protection, reject the proposed declaration, and timely file the civil opposition. Their differences do not establish different client conduct or a concrete outcome.", "short_basis": "Both answers place Bexley on the same materially safe path: preserve records, retain separate counsel, produce nonprivileged corporate records by both deadlines, withhold the memorandum, seek targeted civil protection, reject the proposed declaration, and timely file the civil opposition.", "answer_a_was": "DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS", "answer_b_was": "Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_a_display": "DeepSeek V4-Flash-0731", "answer_b_display": "Qwen 3.5 27B", "winner": "TIE", "verdict_code": "TIE", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-2/verdicts/q23__DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS__vs__Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL.json" }, "qwen35-claude": { "key": "qwen35-claude", "label": "Qwen 3.5 vs Claude", "first": "qwen35", "second": "claude", "status": "tie", "result": "Functional tie", "short_result": "Tie", "basis": "Both answers preserve records, retain separate counsel before Nora testifies, timely produce nonprivileged corporate records, withhold the privileged memorandum, seek narrow protection before the deposition, avoid the proposed declaration, file a truthful civil opposition, and comply with the grand-jury subpoena. Ordinary verification neutralizes their unsupported embellishments without changing that materially correct and safe sequence.", "short_basis": "Both answers preserve records, retain separate counsel before Nora testifies, timely produce nonprivileged corporate records, withhold the privileged memorandum, seek narrow protection before the deposition, avoid the proposed declaration, file a truthful civil opposition, and comply with the grand-jury…", "answer_a_was": "claude-opus-5", "answer_b_was": "Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_a_display": "Claude Opus 5", "answer_b_display": "Qwen 3.5 27B", "winner": "TIE", "verdict_code": "TIE", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-2/verdicts/q23__Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__vs__claude-opus-5.json" } }, "rejected_points": { "qwen38": 0, "deepseek": 1, "claude": 9, "qwen35": 5 }, "delivery_filter_matter": false }, { "qid": "q24", "number": 24, "series": "Series 2", "title": "The Motion That Chased the Wrong Search", "category": "Criminal procedure", "matter_page": "matters/q24/index.html", "question_file": "evidence/series-2/questions/q24.md", "key_file": "evidence/series-2/keys/q24.md", "answers": { "deepseek": "evidence/series-2/answers/DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS/DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS__q24_r1.md", "claude": "evidence/series-2/answers/claude-opus-5/claude-opus-5__q24_r1.md", "qwen35": "evidence/series-2/answers/Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL/Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__q24_r1.md", "qwen38": "evidence/series-2/answers/Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL/Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__q24_r1.md" }, "reasoning": { "deepseek": "evidence/series-2/answers/DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS/DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS__q24_r1.reasoning.md", "claude": "evidence/series-2/answers/claude-opus-5/claude-opus-5__q24_r1.reasoning.md", "qwen35": "evidence/series-2/answers/Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL/Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__q24_r1.reasoning.md", "qwen38": "evidence/series-2/answers/Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL/Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__q24_r1.reasoning.md" }, "pairings": { "qwen38-claude": { "key": "qwen38-claude", "label": "Qwen 3.8 vs Claude", "first": "qwen38", "second": "claude", "status": "tie", "result": "Functional tie", "short_result": "Tie", "basis": "Both answers direct counsel to suppress the fentanyl and out-of-scope phone photograph, abandon staleness and knock-and-announce as suppression theories, concede the physical handgun’s lawful plain-view seizure, and preserve the remaining evidence through severability. Answer A’s unsupported charging and sentencing predictions are rejected through ordinary record verification, leaving the same materially safe, conditional plea posture stated by Answer B.", "short_basis": "Both answers direct counsel to suppress the fentanyl and out-of-scope phone photograph, abandon staleness and knock-and-announce as suppression theories, concede the physical handgun’s lawful plain-view seizure, and preserve the remaining evidence through severability.", "answer_a_was": "claude-opus-5", "answer_b_was": "Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_a_display": "Claude Opus 5", "answer_b_display": "Qwen 3.8 27B", "winner": "TIE", "verdict_code": "TIE", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-2/verdicts/q24__Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__vs__claude-opus-5.json" }, "qwen38-deepseek": { "key": "qwen38-deepseek", "label": "Qwen 3.8 vs DeepSeek", "first": "qwen38", "second": "deepseek", "status": "tie", "result": "Functional tie", "short_result": "Tie", "basis": "Both answers direct counsel to seek targeted suppression of the fentanyl from the undersized tube and the out-of-scope phone photograph, while abandoning staleness, knock-and-announce suppression, and suppression of the physical handgun. Both preserve the lawful search paths and reach the same plea position: the drug charge likely falls absent independent evidence, while firearm exposure based on the physical handgun remains.", "short_basis": "Both answers direct counsel to seek targeted suppression of the fentanyl from the undersized tube and the out-of-scope phone photograph, while abandoning staleness, knock-and-announce suppression, and suppression of the physical handgun.", "answer_a_was": "Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_b_was": "DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS", "answer_a_display": "Qwen 3.8 27B", "answer_b_display": "DeepSeek V4-Flash-0731", "winner": "TIE", "verdict_code": "TIE", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-2/verdicts/q24__DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS__vs__Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL.json" }, "qwen38-qwen35": { "key": "qwen38-qwen35", "label": "Qwen 3.8 vs Qwen 3.5", "first": "qwen38", "second": "qwen35", "status": "tie", "result": "Functional tie", "short_result": "Tie", "basis": "Both answers direct counsel to suppress the fentanyl from the undersized tube and the out-of-scope phone photograph, abandon staleness and knock-and-announce suppression theories, and treat the physical handgun and other lawful search paths as severable. Both therefore produce the same targeted motion and materially similar plea posture: the drug case may fail absent independent evidence, while the firearm and fencing matters may proceed on surviving evidence.", "short_basis": "Both answers direct counsel to suppress the fentanyl from the undersized tube and the out-of-scope phone photograph, abandon staleness and knock-and-announce suppression theories, and treat the physical handgun and other lawful search paths as severable.", "answer_a_was": "Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_b_was": "Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_a_display": "Qwen 3.8 27B", "answer_b_display": "Qwen 3.5 27B", "winner": "TIE", "verdict_code": "TIE", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-2/verdicts/q24__Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__vs__Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL.json" }, "deepseek-claude": { "key": "deepseek-claude", "label": "DeepSeek vs Claude", "first": "deepseek", "second": "claude", "status": "tie", "result": "Functional tie", "short_result": "Tie", "basis": "Both answers direct counsel to suppress the fentanyl from the undersized tube and the out-of-scope phone photograph, abandon staleness and knock-and-announce as suppression grounds, concede the under-bed gun’s admissibility, and seek item-specific relief under severability. After rejecting Answer B’s unsupported assumptions about charges and sentencing, both readers reach the same materially safe litigation and plea-negotiation path.", "short_basis": "Both answers direct counsel to suppress the fentanyl from the undersized tube and the out-of-scope phone photograph, abandon staleness and knock-and-announce as suppression grounds, concede the under-bed gun’s admissibility, and seek item-specific relief under severability.", "answer_a_was": "DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS", "answer_b_was": "claude-opus-5", "answer_a_display": "DeepSeek V4-Flash-0731", "answer_b_display": "Claude Opus 5", "winner": "TIE", "verdict_code": "TIE", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-2/verdicts/q24__DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS__vs__claude-opus-5.json" }, "deepseek-qwen35": { "key": "deepseek-qwen35", "label": "DeepSeek vs Qwen 3.5", "first": "deepseek", "second": "qwen35", "status": "tie", "result": "Functional tie", "short_result": "Tie", "basis": "Both answers place counsel on the same materially correct path: seek suppression of the fentanyl and out-of-scope phone photograph, abandon staleness and knock-and-announce suppression theories, concede the under-bed handgun likely survives under plain view, and apply severability. Both leave Aaron with the same plea posture: likely elimination of the drug evidence and photo-based firearm evidence, while the physical handgun and lawful laptop-related evidence remain available to the prosecution.", "short_basis": "Both answers place counsel on the same materially correct path: seek suppression of the fentanyl and out-of-scope phone photograph, abandon staleness and knock-and-announce suppression theories, concede the under-bed handgun likely survives under plain view, and apply severability.", "answer_a_was": "Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_b_was": "DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS", "answer_a_display": "Qwen 3.5 27B", "answer_b_display": "DeepSeek V4-Flash-0731", "winner": "TIE", "verdict_code": "TIE", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-2/verdicts/q24__DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS__vs__Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL.json" }, "qwen35-claude": { "key": "qwen35-claude", "label": "Qwen 3.5 vs Claude", "first": "qwen35", "second": "claude", "status": "tie", "result": "Functional tie", "short_result": "Tie", "basis": "Both answers direct counsel to seek suppression of the fentanyl and out-of-scope phone photograph, abandon staleness and knock-and-announce suppression theories, treat the under-bed firearm as admissible, and apply severability to preserve lawful evidence. After rejecting unsupported sentencing and plea predictions, both place Aaron on the same materially correct litigation and negotiation path.", "short_basis": "Both answers direct counsel to seek suppression of the fentanyl and out-of-scope phone photograph, abandon staleness and knock-and-announce suppression theories, treat the under-bed firearm as admissible, and apply severability to preserve lawful evidence.", "answer_a_was": "Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_b_was": "claude-opus-5", "answer_a_display": "Qwen 3.5 27B", "answer_b_display": "Claude Opus 5", "winner": "TIE", "verdict_code": "TIE", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-2/verdicts/q24__Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__vs__claude-opus-5.json" } }, "rejected_points": { "qwen38": 0, "deepseek": 1, "claude": 9, "qwen35": 8 }, "delivery_filter_matter": false }, { "qid": "q25", "number": 25, "series": "Series 2", "title": "Sentencing Memorandum for Jana Ortiz", "category": "Criminal sentencing", "matter_page": "matters/q25/index.html", "question_file": "evidence/series-2/questions/q25.md", "key_file": "evidence/series-2/keys/q25.md", "answers": { "deepseek": "evidence/series-2/answers/DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS/DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS__q25_r1.md", "claude": "evidence/series-2/answers/claude-opus-5/claude-opus-5__q25_r1.md", "qwen35": "evidence/series-2/answers/Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL/Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__q25_r1.md", "qwen38": "evidence/series-2/answers/Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL/Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__q25_r1.md" }, "reasoning": { "deepseek": "evidence/series-2/answers/DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS/DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS__q25_r1.reasoning.md", "claude": "evidence/series-2/answers/claude-opus-5/claude-opus-5__q25_r1.reasoning.md", "qwen35": "evidence/series-2/answers/Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL/Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__q25_r1.reasoning.md", "qwen38": "evidence/series-2/answers/Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL/Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__q25_r1.reasoning.md" }, "pairings": { "qwen38-claude": { "key": "qwen38-claude", "label": "Qwen 3.8 vs Claude", "first": "qwen38", "second": "claude", "status": "tie", "result": "Functional tie", "short_result": "Tie", "basis": "Both answers place the court on the same materially correct path: 12 months and one day of custody, supervised release, and restitution payments calibrated to Jana’s $1,700 monthly disposable income. Both candidly address the aggravating facts, victim harm, mitigation, unsupported claims, family care, diabetes, and the distinction between pre-detection and post-plea repayment; no demonstrated difference would produce a materially superior outcome.", "short_basis": "Both answers place the court on the same materially correct path: 12 months and one day of custody, supervised release, and restitution payments calibrated to Jana’s $1,700 monthly disposable income.", "answer_a_was": "Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_b_was": "claude-opus-5", "answer_a_display": "Qwen 3.8 27B", "answer_b_display": "Claude Opus 5", "winner": "TIE", "verdict_code": "TIE", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-2/verdicts/q25__Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__vs__claude-opus-5.json" }, "qwen38-deepseek": { "key": "qwen38-deepseek", "label": "Qwen 3.8 vs DeepSeek", "first": "qwen38", "second": "deepseek", "status": "tie", "result": "Functional tie", "short_result": "Tie", "basis": "Both answers place counsel on the same materially correct path: acknowledge the aggravated conduct and victim harm, reject unsupported mitigation, accurately present the supported mitigating facts, and request 12 months and one day with an income-based restitution condition. The differing payment proposals are both realistic on the supplied income, and the record does not establish that either would produce a materially better result for Jana.", "short_basis": "Both answers place counsel on the same materially correct path: acknowledge the aggravated conduct and victim harm, reject unsupported mitigation, accurately present the supported mitigating facts, and request 12 months and one day with an income-based restitution condition.", "answer_a_was": "Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_b_was": "DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS", "answer_a_display": "Qwen 3.8 27B", "answer_b_display": "DeepSeek V4-Flash-0731", "winner": "TIE", "verdict_code": "TIE", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-2/verdicts/q25__DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS__vs__Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL.json" }, "qwen38-qwen35": { "key": "qwen38-qwen35", "label": "Qwen 3.8 vs Qwen 3.5", "first": "qwen38", "second": "qwen35", "status": "local", "result": "Qwen 3.8 win", "short_result": "Qwen 3.8 win", "basis": "Answer A asks the court to impose 24 months, while Answer B presents a record-supported request for 12 months and one day with ordinary good-time eligibility. A competent defense lawyer following Answer A would affirmatively seek nearly twelve additional months of custody; if the court follows counsel’s recommendation, Jana serves materially longer. Exact difference. Answer A requests “24 months”; Answer B requests “12 months and 1 day.” Different conduct. Counsel using A asks the court for 24 months, while counsel using B seeks a supported below-guideline variance to 12 months and one day. Concrete consequence. If the court accepts the defense recommendation, Jana receives nearly twelve more months of imposed custody under A and loses B’s requested good-time-eligible disposition. Record support. The record expressly authorizes a variance, identifies 12 months and one day as preserving ordinary good-time eligibility, and supplies no-record history, 27 years of work, acceptance, and substantial pre-detection repayment as mitigating facts. Material magnitude. Nearly twelve additional months of custody materially affects Jana’s liberty, employment interruption, caregiving absence, and ability to resume earned-income restitution. Likelihood. Sentencing recommendations are intended to affect the sentence, and B supplies legally recognized, record-based reasons for the lower request rather than asking the court to create them. No safe neutralization by ordinary verification. Changing A’s 24-month request to 12 months and one day requires replacing its central recommendation and constructing the variance argument, not merely checking a fact or calculation.", "short_basis": "Answer A asks the court to impose 24 months, while Answer B presents a record-supported request for 12 months and one day with ordinary good-time eligibility. A competent defense lawyer following Answer A would affirmatively seek nearly twelve additional months of custody; if the court follows counsel’s…", "answer_a_was": "Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_b_was": "Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_a_display": "Qwen 3.5 27B", "answer_b_display": "Qwen 3.8 27B", "winner": "Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "verdict_code": "B", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-2/verdicts/q25__Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__vs__Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL.json" }, "deepseek-claude": { "key": "deepseek-claude", "label": "DeepSeek vs Claude", "first": "deepseek", "second": "claude", "status": "tie", "result": "Functional tie", "short_result": "Tie", "basis": "Both answers place the court on the same materially correct path: 12 months and one day of custody, supervised release with an affordable restitution schedule, candid acknowledgment of the offense and victim harm, and reliance only on supported mitigation. No demonstrated difference would cause a materially safer or better outcome for Jana or the victim.", "short_basis": "Both answers place the court on the same materially correct path: 12 months and one day of custody, supervised release with an affordable restitution schedule, candid acknowledgment of the offense and victim harm, and reliance only on supported mitigation.", "answer_a_was": "DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS", "answer_b_was": "claude-opus-5", "answer_a_display": "DeepSeek V4-Flash-0731", "answer_b_display": "Claude Opus 5", "winner": "TIE", "verdict_code": "TIE", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-2/verdicts/q25__DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS__vs__claude-opus-5.json" }, "deepseek-qwen35": { "key": "deepseek-qwen35", "label": "DeepSeek vs Qwen 3.5", "first": "deepseek", "second": "qwen35", "status": "local", "result": "DeepSeek win", "short_result": "DeepSeek win", "basis": "Answer A asks for a supported sentence of 12 months and one day, while Answer B affirmatively asks the court to impose 24 months. That divergence materially changes Jana’s sentencing position by having her own counsel advocate for approximately an additional year of custody despite record-supported grounds for a variance.", "short_basis": "Answer A asks for a supported sentence of 12 months and one day, while Answer B affirmatively asks the court to impose 24 months. That divergence materially changes Jana’s sentencing position by having her own counsel advocate for approximately an additional year of custody despite record-supported grounds…", "answer_a_was": "DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS", "answer_b_was": "Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_a_display": "DeepSeek V4-Flash-0731", "answer_b_display": "Qwen 3.5 27B", "winner": "DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS", "verdict_code": "A", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-2/verdicts/q25__DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS__vs__Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL.json" }, "qwen35-claude": { "key": "qwen35-claude", "label": "Qwen 3.5 vs Claude", "first": "qwen35", "second": "claude", "status": "frontier", "result": "Claude win", "short_result": "Claude win", "basis": "Answer B accurately uses the record’s strongest mitigation—$70,000 repaid before the audit began—to support a 12-month-and-one-day variance, while Answer A understates that timing and requests 24 months. That divergence places Jana at risk of nearly twelve additional months of imposed custody without requiring the court to reject any governing rule or supplied fact.", "short_basis": "Answer B accurately uses the record’s strongest mitigation—$70,000 repaid before the audit began—to support a 12-month-and-one-day variance, while Answer A understates that timing and requests 24 months.", "answer_a_was": "Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_b_was": "claude-opus-5", "answer_a_display": "Qwen 3.5 27B", "answer_b_display": "Claude Opus 5", "winner": "claude-opus-5", "verdict_code": "B", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-2/verdicts/q25__Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__vs__claude-opus-5.json" } }, "rejected_points": { "qwen38": 1, "deepseek": 0, "claude": 4, "qwen35": 2 }, "delivery_filter_matter": false }, { "qid": "q26", "number": 26, "series": "Series 2", "title": "The Hotline Clock", "category": "Compliance and investigations", "matter_page": "matters/q26/index.html", "question_file": "evidence/series-2/questions/q26.md", "key_file": "evidence/series-2/keys/q26.md", "answers": { "deepseek": "evidence/series-2/answers/DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS/DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS__q26_r1.md", "claude": "evidence/series-2/answers/claude-opus-5/claude-opus-5__q26_r1.md", "qwen35": "evidence/series-2/answers/Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL/Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__q26_r1.md", "qwen38": "evidence/series-2/answers/Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL/Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__q26_r1.md" }, "reasoning": { "deepseek": "evidence/series-2/answers/DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS/DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS__q26_r1.reasoning.md", "claude": "evidence/series-2/answers/claude-opus-5/claude-opus-5__q26_r1.reasoning.md", "qwen35": "evidence/series-2/answers/Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL/Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__q26_r1.reasoning.md", "qwen38": "evidence/series-2/answers/Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL/Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__q26_r1.reasoning.md" }, "pairings": { "qwen38-claude": { "key": "qwen38-claude", "label": "Qwen 3.8 vs Claude", "first": "qwen38", "second": "claude", "status": "tie", "result": "Functional tie", "short_result": "Tie", "basis": "Both answers place Solstice on the same materially correct path: immediate preservation of perishable data and personal work devices, suspension of suspect payments and Cole’s authority, an independent committee-directed outside-counsel investigation, protected interviews, rapid payment tracing, and an early disclosure decision using August 2 as the conservative clock date. Their differences in specificity and timing do not demonstrate a different legal, evidentiary, financial, or operational outcome.", "short_basis": "Both answers place Solstice on the same materially correct path: immediate preservation of perishable data and personal work devices, suspension of suspect payments and Cole’s authority, an independent committee-directed outside-counsel investigation, protected interviews, rapid payment tracing, and an…", "answer_a_was": "claude-opus-5", "answer_b_was": "Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_a_display": "Claude Opus 5", "answer_b_display": "Qwen 3.8 27B", "winner": "TIE", "verdict_code": "TIE", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-2/verdicts/q26__Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__vs__claude-opus-5.json" }, "qwen38-deepseek": { "key": "qwen38-deepseek", "label": "Qwen 3.8 vs DeepSeek", "first": "qwen38", "second": "deepseek", "status": "tie", "result": "Functional tie", "short_result": "Tie", "basis": "Both answers direct immediate preservation of perishable evidence, suspension of suspect payments, independent committee oversight, outside-counsel-led investigation, proper employee warnings, nonretaliation controls, an August 9 decision gate, and disclosure before the assumed September 1 deadline if the evidentiary threshold is met. Their differing descriptions of the threshold and preferred filing dates do not establish materially different conduct or a concrete client consequence on this record.", "short_basis": "Both answers direct immediate preservation of perishable evidence, suspension of suspect payments, independent committee oversight, outside-counsel-led investigation, proper employee warnings, nonretaliation controls, an August 9 decision gate, and disclosure before the assumed September 1 deadline if the…", "answer_a_was": "Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_b_was": "DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS", "answer_a_display": "Qwen 3.8 27B", "answer_b_display": "DeepSeek V4-Flash-0731", "winner": "TIE", "verdict_code": "TIE", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-2/verdicts/q26__DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS__vs__Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL.json" }, "qwen38-qwen35": { "key": "qwen38-qwen35", "label": "Qwen 3.8 vs Qwen 3.5", "first": "qwen38", "second": "qwen35", "status": "local", "result": "Qwen 3.8 win", "short_result": "Qwen 3.8 win", "basis": "Answer A applies an impermissibly high “confirmation” gate and says Solstice may continue investigating if the payment remains ambiguous, despite concluding that the reasonable-belief clock began August 2; it also frames September 1 as a deadline to decide rather than to report. Answer B applies the reasonable-belief threshold and directs filing by August 12–16, preserving eligibility for the presumptive 50 percent penalty reduction before the reporting deadline or regulator contact. Exact difference. A says, “If evidence confirms payment to an official” disclose, but if evidence remains ambiguous “continue investigation,” and calls September 1 the deadline “to make a disclosure decision”; B directs disclosure once a covered payment is reasonably supported and sets an August 12–16 filing target. Different conduct. Under unresolved recipient uncertainty, A’s reader continues investigating without filing; B’s reader files a truthful preliminary disclosure identifying the uncertainty. Concrete consequence. B preserves Solstice’s eligibility for the presumptive 50 percent civil-penalty reduction, while A’s delay can forfeit it through an untimely report or intervening regulator contact. Record support. Rules 5–7 require reporting within 30 days after credible evidence supports a reasonable belief, permit disclosure before every detail is known, and close the voluntary path upon regulator contact. Material magnitude. Losing a presumptive 50 percent penalty reduction materially worsens Solstice’s financial and regulatory position. Likelihood. The present record contains documentary corroboration but lacks the ultimate recipient—the precise ambiguity under which A instructs continued investigation—so the divergent conduct is immediately foreseeable. No safe neutralization by ordinary verification. Resolving A’s conflicting instructions requires replacing its confirmation-based disclosure gate and deriving a filing decision it did not supply; merely checking the date or rule does not place its reader on B’s filing path.", "short_basis": "Answer A applies an impermissibly high “confirmation” gate and says Solstice may continue investigating if the payment remains ambiguous, despite concluding that the reasonable-belief clock began August 2; it also frames September 1 as a deadline to decide rather than to report.", "answer_a_was": "Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_b_was": "Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_a_display": "Qwen 3.5 27B", "answer_b_display": "Qwen 3.8 27B", "winner": "Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "verdict_code": "B", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-2/verdicts/q26__Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__vs__Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL.json" }, "deepseek-claude": { "key": "deepseek-claude", "label": "DeepSeek vs Claude", "first": "deepseek", "second": "claude", "status": "tie", "result": "Functional tie", "short_result": "Tie", "basis": "Both answers direct immediate preservation of perishable evidence, suspension of suspect payments and Cole’s authority, an independent committee and outside counsel, appropriate interview warnings and nonretaliation controls, and prompt collection of the same core records. Both operationally treat August 2 as the clock date, require an early disclosure decision, and permit a truthful protective disclosure identifying known facts and unresolved recipient information without disclosing privileged advice. No demonstrated difference changes Solstice’s ability to preserve evidence, prevent ongoing payments, or retain disclosure credit.", "short_basis": "Both answers direct immediate preservation of perishable evidence, suspension of suspect payments and Cole’s authority, an independent committee and outside counsel, appropriate interview warnings and nonretaliation controls, and prompt collection of the same core records.", "answer_a_was": "claude-opus-5", "answer_b_was": "DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS", "answer_a_display": "Claude Opus 5", "answer_b_display": "DeepSeek V4-Flash-0731", "winner": "TIE", "verdict_code": "TIE", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-2/verdicts/q26__DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS__vs__claude-opus-5.json" }, "deepseek-qwen35": { "key": "deepseek-qwen35", "label": "DeepSeek vs Qwen 3.5", "first": "deepseek", "second": "qwen35", "status": "tie", "result": "Functional tie", "short_result": "Tie", "basis": "Both answers put Solstice on the same material path: immediate preservation, suspension of suspicious payments and Cole’s payment authority, independent committee oversight, outside-counsel direction, protected interviews, rapid tracing of the payment, and a disclosure decision well before the presumed September 1 deadline. Their differences do not establish that either client would lose evidence, voluntary-disclosure credit, privilege, or another concrete interest.", "short_basis": "Both answers put Solstice on the same material path: immediate preservation, suspension of suspicious payments and Cole’s payment authority, independent committee oversight, outside-counsel direction, protected interviews, rapid tracing of the payment, and a disclosure decision well before the presumed…", "answer_a_was": "Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_b_was": "DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS", "answer_a_display": "Qwen 3.5 27B", "answer_b_display": "DeepSeek V4-Flash-0731", "winner": "TIE", "verdict_code": "TIE", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-2/verdicts/q26__DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS__vs__Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL.json" }, "qwen35-claude": { "key": "qwen35-claude", "label": "Qwen 3.5 vs Claude", "first": "qwen35", "second": "claude", "status": "tie", "result": "Functional tie", "short_result": "Tie", "basis": "Both answers put Solstice on the same material path: immediately preserve perishable evidence, stop suspect payment activity, establish independent board and outside-counsel control, protect witnesses, investigate the recipient and transaction, treat August 2 as the operative clock date, and prepare an early factual disclosure that preserves legal advice. Their differences in collection breadth, operational controls, and disclosure timing do not establish a concrete different outcome on the supplied record.", "short_basis": "Both answers put Solstice on the same material path: immediately preserve perishable evidence, stop suspect payment activity, establish independent board and outside-counsel control, protect witnesses, investigate the recipient and transaction, treat August 2 as the operative clock date, and prepare an…", "answer_a_was": "Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_b_was": "claude-opus-5", "answer_a_display": "Qwen 3.5 27B", "answer_b_display": "Claude Opus 5", "winner": "TIE", "verdict_code": "TIE", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-2/verdicts/q26__Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__vs__claude-opus-5.json" } }, "rejected_points": { "qwen38": 1, "deepseek": 2, "claude": 6, "qwen35": 3 }, "delivery_filter_matter": false }, { "qid": "q27", "number": 27, "series": "Series 2", "title": "The Whistleblower the Manager Wants Gone", "category": "Employment", "matter_page": "matters/q27/index.html", "question_file": "evidence/series-2/questions/q27.md", "key_file": "evidence/series-2/keys/q27.md", "answers": { "deepseek": "evidence/series-2/answers/DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS/DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS__q27_r1.md", "claude": "evidence/series-2/answers/claude-opus-5/claude-opus-5__q27_r1.md", "qwen35": "evidence/series-2/answers/Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL/Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__q27_r1.md", "qwen38": "evidence/series-2/answers/Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL/Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__q27_r1.md" }, "reasoning": { "deepseek": "evidence/series-2/answers/DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS/DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS__q27_r1.reasoning.md", "claude": "evidence/series-2/answers/claude-opus-5/claude-opus-5__q27_r1.reasoning.md", "qwen35": "evidence/series-2/answers/Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL/Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__q27_r1.reasoning.md", "qwen38": "evidence/series-2/answers/Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL/Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__q27_r1.reasoning.md" }, "pairings": { "qwen38-claude": { "key": "qwen38-claude", "label": "Qwen 3.8 vs Claude", "first": "qwen38", "second": "claude", "status": "tie", "result": "Functional tie", "short_result": "Tie", "basis": "Both answers reject immediate for-cause termination and permit separation only on February 15 through faithful implementation of the pre-report restructuring: all four positions genuinely eliminated, no substantially similar replacement, eight weeks’ severance, independent review, neutral communications, and preservation. If the function continues or Maya is singled out, both put Kestrel on the same material path—no termination on the current record and, at most, comparator-consistent discipline for the transfer.", "short_basis": "Both answers reject immediate for-cause termination and permit separation only on February 15 through faithful implementation of the pre-report restructuring: all four positions genuinely eliminated, no substantially similar replacement, eight weeks’ severance, independent review, neutral communications…", "answer_a_was": "Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_b_was": "claude-opus-5", "answer_a_display": "Qwen 3.8 27B", "answer_b_display": "Claude Opus 5", "winner": "TIE", "verdict_code": "TIE", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-2/verdicts/q27__Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__vs__claude-opus-5.json" }, "qwen38-deepseek": { "key": "qwen38-deepseek", "label": "Qwen 3.8 vs DeepSeek", "first": "qwen38", "second": "deepseek", "status": "tie", "result": "Functional tie", "short_result": "Tie", "basis": "Both answers direct Kestrel to reject the for-cause termination, independently preserve and review the record, and impose at most the comparator-consistent warning for the transfer. Both permit separation only through the genuine December 18 restructuring effective February 15, without a substantially similar replacement and with eight weeks’ severance; otherwise, Maya remains employed.", "short_basis": "Both answers direct Kestrel to reject the for-cause termination, independently preserve and review the record, and impose at most the comparator-consistent warning for the transfer.", "answer_a_was": "DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS", "answer_b_was": "Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_a_display": "DeepSeek V4-Flash-0731", "answer_b_display": "Qwen 3.8 27B", "winner": "TIE", "verdict_code": "TIE", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-2/verdicts/q27__DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS__vs__Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL.json" }, "qwen38-qwen35": { "key": "qwen38-qwen35", "label": "Qwen 3.8 vs Qwen 3.5", "first": "qwen38", "second": "qwen35", "status": "tie", "result": "Functional tie", "short_result": "Tie", "basis": "Both answers direct Kestrel to reject a for-cause termination, exclude Reid’s tainted recommendation, preserve relevant records, and proceed only through the genuine December 18 restructuring on its original terms with eight weeks of severance and no substantially identical replacement. If that restructuring is not genuine, both leave Maya employed and recognize that the January 28 conduct supports, at most, policy-consistent discipline.", "short_basis": "Both answers direct Kestrel to reject a for-cause termination, exclude Reid’s tainted recommendation, preserve relevant records, and proceed only through the genuine December 18 restructuring on its original terms with eight weeks of severance and no substantially identical replacement.", "answer_a_was": "Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_b_was": "Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_a_display": "Qwen 3.8 27B", "answer_b_display": "Qwen 3.5 27B", "winner": "TIE", "verdict_code": "TIE", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-2/verdicts/q27__Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__vs__Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL.json" }, "deepseek-claude": { "key": "deepseek-claude", "label": "DeepSeek vs Claude", "first": "deepseek", "second": "claude", "status": "tie", "result": "Functional tie", "short_result": "Tie", "basis": "Both answers reject an immediate for-cause termination, limit the transfer discipline to the comparator-consistent written warning, and permit separation only through faithful implementation of the pre-report plan: all four positions eliminated February 15, no substantially similar replacement work, independent review, and eight weeks’ severance. If the function continues, both leave Kestrel on the same material path of retaining Maya rather than terminating her on the present record, while preserving evidence and avoiding retaliatory communications.", "short_basis": "Both answers reject an immediate for-cause termination, limit the transfer discipline to the comparator-consistent written warning, and permit separation only through faithful implementation of the pre-report plan: all four positions eliminated February 15, no substantially similar replacement work…", "answer_a_was": "DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS", "answer_b_was": "claude-opus-5", "answer_a_display": "DeepSeek V4-Flash-0731", "answer_b_display": "Claude Opus 5", "winner": "TIE", "verdict_code": "TIE", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-2/verdicts/q27__DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS__vs__claude-opus-5.json" }, "deepseek-qwen35": { "key": "deepseek-qwen35", "label": "DeepSeek vs Qwen 3.5", "first": "deepseek", "second": "qwen35", "status": "local", "result": "DeepSeek win", "short_result": "DeepSeek win", "basis": "Answer A permits Kestrel to terminate Maya under a selectively altered RIF while retaining the other three employees if unspecified objective documentation can be found; Answer B correctly limits separation to genuine implementation of the fixed, pre-report group elimination. Following A’s alternative would allow the contemplated singling out of Maya, undermining the same-action defense and exposing Kestrel to retaliation liability. Exact difference. A says eliminating all four positions is only “ideal” and permits retaining three based on other documentation; B requires elimination of the entire group and no substantially similar replacement role. Different conduct. Under A, Kestrel may terminate Maya while retaining her three coworkers; under B, Kestrel does not terminate her unless the genuine December 18 group elimination proceeds. Concrete consequence. Kestrel loses its clear-and-convincing same-action defense and incurs retaliation exposure by selectively removing Maya after her protected report. Record support. The December 18 plan eliminated all four identified positions, while Reid’s post-report proposal retains the other three and reposts 80% of Maya’s duties. Material magnitude. The difference determines whether Kestrel has a defensible RIF termination or an adverse action supported by evidence of retaliatory selection. Likelihood. Reid and the CEO presently seek Maya’s removal, making A’s stated selective-RIF alternative an immediately actionable route. No safe neutralization by ordinary verification. Rejecting A’s alternative requires resolving its contradictory recommendation and supplying the missing legal conclusion that only the genuine fixed plan supports separation.", "short_basis": "Answer A permits Kestrel to terminate Maya under a selectively altered RIF while retaining the other three employees if unspecified objective documentation can be found; Answer B correctly limits separation to genuine implementation of the fixed, pre-report group elimination.", "answer_a_was": "Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_b_was": "DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS", "answer_a_display": "Qwen 3.5 27B", "answer_b_display": "DeepSeek V4-Flash-0731", "winner": "DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS", "verdict_code": "B", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-2/verdicts/q27__DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS__vs__Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL.json" }, "qwen35-claude": { "key": "qwen35-claude", "label": "Qwen 3.5 vs Claude", "first": "qwen35", "second": "claude", "status": "tie", "result": "Functional tie", "short_result": "Tie", "basis": "Both answers reject immediate for-cause termination and place Kestrel on the same safe path: implement the genuine December 18 plan as written, eliminate all four positions, pay eight weeks’ severance, avoid substantially identical replacement work, exclude Reid, preserve evidence, and use neutral communications. If the function continues or the other three employees are retained without pre-existing objective grounds, both ultimately require Maya’s retention rather than separation.", "short_basis": "Both answers reject immediate for-cause termination and place Kestrel on the same safe path: implement the genuine December 18 plan as written, eliminate all four positions, pay eight weeks’ severance, avoid substantially identical replacement work, exclude Reid, preserve evidence, and use neutral…", "answer_a_was": "claude-opus-5", "answer_b_was": "Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_a_display": "Claude Opus 5", "answer_b_display": "Qwen 3.5 27B", "winner": "TIE", "verdict_code": "TIE", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-2/verdicts/q27__Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__vs__claude-opus-5.json" } }, "rejected_points": { "qwen38": 0, "deepseek": 2, "claude": 13, "qwen35": 3 }, "delivery_filter_matter": false }, { "qid": "q28", "number": 28, "series": "Series 2", "title": "The Files in Serena's Apartment", "category": "Trade secrets and data", "matter_page": "matters/q28/index.html", "question_file": "evidence/series-2/questions/q28.md", "key_file": "evidence/series-2/keys/q28.md", "answers": { "deepseek": "evidence/series-2/answers/DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS/DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS__q28_r1.md", "claude": "evidence/series-2/answers/claude-opus-5/claude-opus-5__q28_r1.md", "qwen35": "evidence/series-2/answers/Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL/Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__q28_r1.md", "qwen38": "evidence/series-2/answers/Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL/Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__q28_r1.md" }, "reasoning": { "deepseek": "evidence/series-2/answers/DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS/DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS__q28_r1.reasoning.md", "claude": "evidence/series-2/answers/claude-opus-5/claude-opus-5__q28_r1.reasoning.md", "qwen35": "evidence/series-2/answers/Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL/Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__q28_r1.reasoning.md", "qwen38": "evidence/series-2/answers/Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL/Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__q28_r1.reasoning.md" }, "pairings": { "qwen38-claude": { "key": "qwen38-claude", "label": "Qwen 3.8 vs Claude", "first": "qwen38", "second": "claude", "status": "tie", "result": "Functional tie", "short_result": "Tie", "basis": "Both answers direct counsel to preserve and produce Categories A and E through protected channels, sequester Category C with notice and a privilege protocol, and return or delete Categories B and D only through a documented forensic process. Both prohibit disclosure to the journalist or prospective employer, reject Avenor’s blanket demand, and leave Serena on the same materially safe handling and communications path.", "short_basis": "Both answers direct counsel to preserve and produce Categories A and E through protected channels, sequester Category C with notice and a privilege protocol, and return or delete Categories B and D only through a documented forensic process.", "answer_a_was": "claude-opus-5", "answer_b_was": "Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_a_display": "Claude Opus 5", "answer_b_display": "Qwen 3.8 27B", "winner": "TIE", "verdict_code": "TIE", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-2/verdicts/q28__Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__vs__claude-opus-5.json" }, "qwen38-deepseek": { "key": "qwen38-deepseek", "label": "Qwen 3.8 vs DeepSeek", "first": "qwen38", "second": "deepseek", "status": "tie", "result": "Functional tie", "short_result": "Tie", "basis": "Both answers direct counsel to preserve and narrowly produce Categories A and E, sequester Categories B–D, notify Avenor regarding the privileged memorandum, and resolve return or deletion through a documented forensic protocol. Both prohibit disclosure to the journalist or prospective employer and reject immediate blanket deletion, placing Serena on the same materially safe legal and evidentiary path.", "short_basis": "Both answers direct counsel to preserve and narrowly produce Categories A and E, sequester Categories B–D, notify Avenor regarding the privileged memorandum, and resolve return or deletion through a documented forensic protocol.", "answer_a_was": "DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS", "answer_b_was": "Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_a_display": "DeepSeek V4-Flash-0731", "answer_b_display": "Qwen 3.8 27B", "winner": "TIE", "verdict_code": "TIE", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-2/verdicts/q28__DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS__vs__Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL.json" }, "qwen38-qwen35": { "key": "qwen38-qwen35", "label": "Qwen 3.8 vs Qwen 3.5", "first": "qwen38", "second": "qwen35", "status": "tie", "result": "Functional tie", "short_result": "Tie", "basis": "Both readers preserve and provide only Categories A and relevant portions of E to counsel or the labor agency, sequester Category C, and return or delete Categories B–D only through a documented forensic protocol. Both also prohibit disclosure to the journalist or prospective employer and reject Avenor’s blanket demand without destroying relevant evidence.", "short_basis": "Both readers preserve and provide only Categories A and relevant portions of E to counsel or the labor agency, sequester Category C, and return or delete Categories B–D only through a documented forensic protocol.", "answer_a_was": "Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_b_was": "Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_a_display": "Qwen 3.8 27B", "answer_b_display": "Qwen 3.5 27B", "winner": "TIE", "verdict_code": "TIE", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-2/verdicts/q28__Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__vs__Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL.json" }, "deepseek-claude": { "key": "deepseek-claude", "label": "DeepSeek vs Claude", "first": "deepseek", "second": "claude", "status": "tie", "result": "Functional tie", "short_result": "Tie", "basis": "Both answers direct counsel to secure and forensically segregate the drive, preserve and provide Categories A and E only through protected channels, sequester Categories B through D pending a documented protocol, notify Avenor concerning privilege, and prohibit disclosure to the journalist or prospective employer. They therefore place Serena on the same materially correct and safe path.", "short_basis": "Both answers direct counsel to secure and forensically segregate the drive, preserve and provide Categories A and E only through protected channels, sequester Categories B through D pending a documented protocol, notify Avenor concerning privilege, and prohibit disclosure to the journalist or prospective…", "answer_a_was": "claude-opus-5", "answer_b_was": "DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS", "answer_a_display": "Claude Opus 5", "answer_b_display": "DeepSeek V4-Flash-0731", "winner": "TIE", "verdict_code": "TIE", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-2/verdicts/q28__DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS__vs__claude-opus-5.json" }, "deepseek-qwen35": { "key": "deepseek-qwen35", "label": "DeepSeek vs Qwen 3.5", "first": "deepseek", "second": "qwen35", "status": "tie", "result": "Functional tie", "short_result": "Tie", "basis": "Both answers direct Serena to preserve and segregate the drive, disclose only Category A and relevant Category E materials to counsel and the labor agency, sequester Categories B–D, stop review and notify Avenor concerning Category C, and resolve return or destruction through a documented forensic protocol. Both prohibit disclosure to the journalist or prospective employer and preserve Serena’s retaliation position while recognizing independent confidentiality exposure; no concrete client outcome differs.", "short_basis": "Both answers direct Serena to preserve and segregate the drive, disclose only Category A and relevant Category E materials to counsel and the labor agency, sequester Categories B–D, stop review and notify Avenor concerning Category C, and resolve return or destruction through a documented forensic protocol.", "answer_a_was": "DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS", "answer_b_was": "Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_a_display": "DeepSeek V4-Flash-0731", "answer_b_display": "Qwen 3.5 27B", "winner": "TIE", "verdict_code": "TIE", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-2/verdicts/q28__DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS__vs__Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL.json" }, "qwen35-claude": { "key": "qwen35-claude", "label": "Qwen 3.5 vs Claude", "first": "qwen35", "second": "claude", "status": "tie", "result": "Functional tie", "short_result": "Tie", "basis": "Both answers put counsel on the same material path: preserve and forensically copy the drive, segregate the categories, provide only relevant payroll evidence and notes to the agency, sequester privileged material, return or destroy unrelated data through a documented protocol, and prohibit disclosure to the journalist or prospective employer. Their differences do not produce a demonstrated change in Serena’s legal, evidentiary, privacy, or trade-secret position.", "short_basis": "Both answers put counsel on the same material path: preserve and forensically copy the drive, segregate the categories, provide only relevant payroll evidence and notes to the agency, sequester privileged material, return or destroy unrelated data through a documented protocol, and prohibit disclosure to…", "answer_a_was": "claude-opus-5", "answer_b_was": "Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_a_display": "Claude Opus 5", "answer_b_display": "Qwen 3.5 27B", "winner": "TIE", "verdict_code": "TIE", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-2/verdicts/q28__Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__vs__claude-opus-5.json" } }, "rejected_points": { "qwen38": 2, "deepseek": 5, "claude": 5, "qwen35": 10 }, "delivery_filter_matter": false }, { "qid": "q29", "number": 29, "series": "Series 2", "title": "The Relapse Before the Step-Up Hearing", "category": "Family law", "matter_page": "matters/q29/index.html", "question_file": "evidence/series-2/questions/q29.md", "key_file": "evidence/series-2/keys/q29.md", "answers": { "deepseek": "evidence/series-2/answers/DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS/DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS__q29_r1.md", "claude": "evidence/series-2/answers/claude-opus-5/claude-opus-5__q29_r1.md", "qwen35": "evidence/series-2/answers/Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL/Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__q29_r1.md", "qwen38": "evidence/series-2/answers/Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL/Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__q29_r1.md" }, "reasoning": { "deepseek": "evidence/series-2/answers/DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS/DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS__q29_r1.reasoning.md", "qwen35": "evidence/series-2/answers/Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL/Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__q29_r1.reasoning.md", "qwen38": "evidence/series-2/answers/Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL/Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__q29_r1.reasoning.md" }, "pairings": { "qwen38-claude": { "key": "qwen38-claude", "label": "Qwen 3.8 vs Claude", "first": "qwen38", "second": "claude", "status": "tie", "result": "Functional tie", "short_result": "Tie", "basis": "Both answers place Tessa on the same material path: reject emergency or immediate-equal-time litigation, candidly acknowledge the relapse, impaired driving, and nondisclosure, negotiate Daniel’s 90-day framework with objective safeguards, and build a sustained record before seeking phased expansion. Their differing proposed schedules and mechanics do not establish a record-supported difference in Eli’s safety or Tessa’s ultimate custody position.", "short_basis": "Both answers place Tessa on the same material path: reject emergency or immediate-equal-time litigation, candidly acknowledge the relapse, impaired driving, and nondisclosure, negotiate Daniel’s 90-day framework with objective safeguards, and build a sustained record before seeking phased expansion.", "answer_a_was": "Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_b_was": "claude-opus-5", "answer_a_display": "Qwen 3.8 27B", "answer_b_display": "Claude Opus 5", "winner": "TIE", "verdict_code": "TIE", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-2/verdicts/q29__Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__vs__claude-opus-5.json" }, "qwen38-deepseek": { "key": "qwen38-deepseek", "label": "Qwen 3.8 vs DeepSeek", "first": "qwen38", "second": "deepseek", "status": "tie", "result": "Functional tie", "short_result": "Tie", "basis": "Both answers direct Tessa not to seek immediate equal custody, to acknowledge the relapse and nondisclosure candidly, and to negotiate a roughly 90-day safety-focused plan involving supervision, treatment, testing, transportation limits, and review. If negotiation fails, both advise building a stronger recovery record before seeking a phased modification, leaving Tessa on the same materially safe legal and parenting path.", "short_basis": "Both answers direct Tessa not to seek immediate equal custody, to acknowledge the relapse and nondisclosure candidly, and to negotiate a roughly 90-day safety-focused plan involving supervision, treatment, testing, transportation limits, and review.", "answer_a_was": "DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS", "answer_b_was": "Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_a_display": "DeepSeek V4-Flash-0731", "answer_b_display": "Qwen 3.8 27B", "winner": "TIE", "verdict_code": "TIE", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-2/verdicts/q29__DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS__vs__Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL.json" }, "qwen38-qwen35": { "key": "qwen38-qwen35", "label": "Qwen 3.8 vs Qwen 3.5", "first": "qwen38", "second": "qwen35", "status": "local", "result": "Qwen 3.8 win", "short_result": "Qwen 3.8 win", "basis": "Answer A pursues an objective step-up after 90 additional days and permits seeking a court-ordered phased plan if Daniel refuses, while Answer B recommends a six-month plan and postpones litigation until six months of compliance. Following B therefore delays Tessa’s opportunity for unsupervised parenting time and judicial relief by roughly three months despite Daniel’s stated willingness to consider step-up terms after 90 days.", "short_basis": "Answer A pursues an objective step-up after 90 additional days and permits seeking a court-ordered phased plan if Daniel refuses, while Answer B recommends a six-month plan and postpones litigation until six months of compliance.", "answer_a_was": "Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_b_was": "Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_a_display": "Qwen 3.8 27B", "answer_b_display": "Qwen 3.5 27B", "winner": "Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "verdict_code": "A", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-2/verdicts/q29__Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__vs__Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL.json" }, "deepseek-claude": { "key": "deepseek-claude", "label": "DeepSeek vs Claude", "first": "deepseek", "second": "claude", "status": "tie", "result": "Functional tie", "short_result": "Tie", "basis": "Both answers direct Tessa away from emergency or immediate equal custody and toward candid disclosure, continued recovery documentation, and negotiation of a safety-based phased plan, with litigation deferred until the record is stronger if agreement fails. Although their proposed step-up schedules differ, the record does not establish that either schedule would materially improve or harm Eli’s safety or Tessa’s custody position relative to the other.", "short_basis": "Both answers direct Tessa away from emergency or immediate equal custody and toward candid disclosure, continued recovery documentation, and negotiation of a safety-based phased plan, with litigation deferred until the record is stronger if agreement fails.", "answer_a_was": "claude-opus-5", "answer_b_was": "DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS", "answer_a_display": "Claude Opus 5", "answer_b_display": "DeepSeek V4-Flash-0731", "winner": "TIE", "verdict_code": "TIE", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-2/verdicts/q29__DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS__vs__claude-opus-5.json" }, "deepseek-qwen35": { "key": "deepseek-qwen35", "label": "DeepSeek vs Qwen 3.5", "first": "deepseek", "second": "qwen35", "status": "tie", "result": "Functional tie", "short_result": "Tie", "basis": "Both answers direct Tessa not to seek immediate equal custody or emergency relief, to acknowledge the relapse, impaired driving, and nondisclosure candidly, and to negotiate a safeguarded phased plan while building a longer recovery record. Their differences in milestones and plan details do not establish that Daniel or the court would produce materially different parenting-time outcomes.", "short_basis": "Both answers direct Tessa not to seek immediate equal custody or emergency relief, to acknowledge the relapse, impaired driving, and nondisclosure candidly, and to negotiate a safeguarded phased plan while building a longer recovery record.", "answer_a_was": "DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS", "answer_b_was": "Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_a_display": "DeepSeek V4-Flash-0731", "answer_b_display": "Qwen 3.5 27B", "winner": "TIE", "verdict_code": "TIE", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-2/verdicts/q29__DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS__vs__Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL.json" }, "qwen35-claude": { "key": "qwen35-claude", "label": "Qwen 3.5 vs Claude", "first": "qwen35", "second": "claude", "status": "frontier", "result": "Claude win", "short_result": "Claude win", "basis": "Both answers reject emergency relief and immediate equal custody in favor of candor, safeguards, and a negotiated phased plan. The proven divergence is timing: Answer A seeks an automatic step-up after 90 clean days and litigation if Daniel then stalls, while Answer B advises waiting six months before litigating and proposes review only after six months or 12 months of negative tests. Following Answer B would likely leave Tessa unnecessarily confined to supervised contact for additional months despite a clean record supporting gradual restoration.", "short_basis": "Both answers reject emergency relief and immediate equal custody in favor of candor, safeguards, and a negotiated phased plan. The proven divergence is timing: Answer A seeks an automatic step-up after 90 clean days and litigation if Daniel then stalls, while Answer B advises waiting six months before…", "answer_a_was": "claude-opus-5", "answer_b_was": "Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_a_display": "Claude Opus 5", "answer_b_display": "Qwen 3.5 27B", "winner": "claude-opus-5", "verdict_code": "A", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-2/verdicts/q29__Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__vs__claude-opus-5.json" } }, "rejected_points": { "qwen38": 4, "deepseek": 1, "claude": 2, "qwen35": 11 }, "delivery_filter_matter": false }, { "qid": "q30", "number": 30, "series": "Series 2", "title": "The Wallets Behind the Divorce", "category": "Family law", "matter_page": "matters/q30/index.html", "question_file": "evidence/series-2/questions/q30.md", "key_file": "evidence/series-2/keys/q30.md", "answers": { "deepseek": "evidence/series-2/answers/DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS/DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS__q30_r1.md", "claude": "evidence/series-2/answers/claude-opus-5/claude-opus-5__q30_r1.md", "qwen35": "evidence/series-2/answers/Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL/Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__q30_r1.md", "qwen38": "evidence/series-2/answers/Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL/Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__q30_r1.md" }, "reasoning": { "deepseek": "evidence/series-2/answers/DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS/DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS__q30_r1.reasoning.md", "claude": "evidence/series-2/answers/claude-opus-5/claude-opus-5__q30_r1.reasoning.md", "qwen35": "evidence/series-2/answers/Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL/Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__q30_r1.reasoning.md", "qwen38": "evidence/series-2/answers/Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL/Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__q30_r1.reasoning.md" }, "pairings": { "qwen38-claude": { "key": "qwen38-claude", "label": "Qwen 3.8 vs Claude", "first": "qwen38", "second": "claude", "status": "tie", "result": "Functional tie", "short_result": "Tie", "basis": "Both readers calculate the known holdings as $280,000 separate and $140,000 marital, identify Mira’s $70,000 baseline share, provisionally classify the second wallet as marital, and calculate a possible total recovery of $154,000 if intentional concealment is proved. Both reject the $50,000 release and pursue targeted tracing before final settlement, leaving Mira on the same materially correct and safe path.", "short_basis": "Both readers calculate the known holdings as $280,000 separate and $140,000 marital, identify Mira’s $70,000 baseline share, provisionally classify the second wallet as marital, and calculate a possible total recovery of $154,000 if intentional concealment is proved.", "answer_a_was": "Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_b_was": "claude-opus-5", "answer_a_display": "Qwen 3.8 27B", "answer_b_display": "Claude Opus 5", "winner": "TIE", "verdict_code": "TIE", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-2/verdicts/q30__Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__vs__claude-opus-5.json" }, "qwen38-deepseek": { "key": "qwen38-deepseek", "label": "Qwen 3.8 vs DeepSeek", "first": "qwen38", "second": "deepseek", "status": "tie", "result": "Functional tie", "short_result": "Tie", "basis": "Both answers reach the same material path: classify the known holdings as $280,000 separate and $140,000 marital, value Mira’s known share at $70,000, provisionally classify the second wallet as marital, preserve the possible $24,000 surcharge, reject the $50,000 offer, and seek targeted forensic discovery before settlement. Their differences in discovery detail and conditional-settlement language do not produce a demonstrated difference in Mira’s position.", "short_basis": "Both answers reach the same material path: classify the known holdings as $280,000 separate and $140,000 marital, value Mira’s known share at $70,000, provisionally classify the second wallet as marital, preserve the possible $24,000 surcharge, reject the $50,000 offer, and seek targeted forensic discovery…", "answer_a_was": "Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_b_was": "DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS", "answer_a_display": "Qwen 3.8 27B", "answer_b_display": "DeepSeek V4-Flash-0731", "winner": "TIE", "verdict_code": "TIE", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-2/verdicts/q30__DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS__vs__Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL.json" }, "qwen38-qwen35": { "key": "qwen38-qwen35", "label": "Qwen 3.8 vs Qwen 3.5", "first": "qwen38", "second": "qwen35", "status": "tie", "result": "Functional tie", "short_result": "Tie", "basis": "Both answers reach the same classifications and values: $140,000 known marital value, Mira’s $70,000 known share, provisional marital treatment of the second wallet, and a potential total recovery of $154,000 if intentional concealment is proved. Both reject the $50,000 offer and direct counsel to obtain targeted source, wallet, exchange, and donor discovery before final settlement; the differences in proposed discovery detail do not establish a different concrete outcome.", "short_basis": "Both answers reach the same classifications and values: $140,000 known marital value, Mira’s $70,000 known share, provisional marital treatment of the second wallet, and a potential total recovery of $154,000 if intentional concealment is proved.", "answer_a_was": "Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_b_was": "Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_a_display": "Qwen 3.8 27B", "answer_b_display": "Qwen 3.5 27B", "winner": "TIE", "verdict_code": "TIE", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-2/verdicts/q30__Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__vs__Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL.json" }, "deepseek-claude": { "key": "deepseek-claude", "label": "DeepSeek vs Claude", "first": "deepseek", "second": "claude", "status": "tie", "result": "Functional tie", "short_result": "Tie", "basis": "Both answers calculate the same separate and marital shares, provisionally classify the second wallet as marital, identify Mira’s $70,000 baseline and $154,000 potential recovery, reject the $50,000 offer, and direct counsel to obtain targeted forensic discovery before final division. Their differences do not establish materially different client conduct or outcomes.", "short_basis": "Both answers calculate the same separate and marital shares, provisionally classify the second wallet as marital, identify Mira’s $70,000 baseline and $154,000 potential recovery, reject the $50,000 offer, and direct counsel to obtain targeted forensic discovery before final division.", "answer_a_was": "claude-opus-5", "answer_b_was": "DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS", "answer_a_display": "Claude Opus 5", "answer_b_display": "DeepSeek V4-Flash-0731", "winner": "TIE", "verdict_code": "TIE", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-2/verdicts/q30__DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS__vs__claude-opus-5.json" }, "deepseek-qwen35": { "key": "deepseek-qwen35", "label": "DeepSeek vs Qwen 3.5", "first": "deepseek", "second": "qwen35", "status": "tie", "result": "Functional tie", "short_result": "Tie", "basis": "Both answers correctly trace the known holdings, calculate Mira’s $70,000 known marital share and $154,000 potential total recovery, reject the $50,000 offer, and recommend targeted forensic discovery before settlement. Their differences do not alter the materially correct and safe course: preserve the presumptive-marital claim, investigate the alleged gift, and seek the surcharge only upon proof of intentional concealment.", "short_basis": "Both answers correctly trace the known holdings, calculate Mira’s $70,000 known marital share and $154,000 potential total recovery, reject the $50,000 offer, and recommend targeted forensic discovery before settlement.", "answer_a_was": "Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_b_was": "DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS", "answer_a_display": "Qwen 3.5 27B", "answer_b_display": "DeepSeek V4-Flash-0731", "winner": "TIE", "verdict_code": "TIE", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-2/verdicts/q30__DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS__vs__Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL.json" }, "qwen35-claude": { "key": "qwen35-claude", "label": "Qwen 3.5 vs Claude", "first": "qwen35", "second": "claude", "status": "tie", "result": "Functional tie", "short_result": "Tie", "basis": "Both readers classify the known holdings as $280,000 separate and $140,000 marital, recognize Mira’s $70,000 baseline share, provisionally treat the second wallet as marital, and calculate a possible total award of $154,000 including the surcharge. Both reject the $50,000 offer and seek targeted source, wallet, exchange, and donor discovery before final settlement, placing Mira on the same materially safe path.", "short_basis": "Both readers classify the known holdings as $280,000 separate and $140,000 marital, recognize Mira’s $70,000 baseline share, provisionally treat the second wallet as marital, and calculate a possible total award of $154,000 including the surcharge.", "answer_a_was": "Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_b_was": "claude-opus-5", "answer_a_display": "Qwen 3.5 27B", "answer_b_display": "Claude Opus 5", "winner": "TIE", "verdict_code": "TIE", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-2/verdicts/q30__Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__vs__claude-opus-5.json" } }, "rejected_points": { "qwen38": 4, "deepseek": 0, "claude": 3, "qwen35": 5 }, "delivery_filter_matter": false }, { "qid": "q31", "number": 31, "series": "Series 2", "title": "The Prenup Memo Audit", "category": "Family law", "matter_page": "matters/q31/index.html", "question_file": "evidence/series-2/questions/q31.md", "key_file": "evidence/series-2/keys/q31.md", "answers": { "deepseek": "evidence/series-2/answers/DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS/DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS__q31_r1.md", "claude": "evidence/series-2/answers/claude-opus-5/claude-opus-5__q31_r1.md", "qwen35": "evidence/series-2/answers/Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL/Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__q31_r1.md", "qwen38": "evidence/series-2/answers/Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL/Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__q31_r1.md" }, "reasoning": { "deepseek": "evidence/series-2/answers/DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS/DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS__q31_r1.reasoning.md", "claude": "evidence/series-2/answers/claude-opus-5/claude-opus-5__q31_r1.reasoning.md", "qwen35": "evidence/series-2/answers/Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL/Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__q31_r1.reasoning.md", "qwen38": "evidence/series-2/answers/Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL/Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__q31_r1.reasoning.md" }, "pairings": { "qwen38-claude": { "key": "qwen38-claude", "label": "Qwen 3.8 vs Claude", "first": "qwen38", "second": "claude", "status": "tie", "result": "Functional tie", "short_result": "Tie", "basis": "Both answers place Nora on the same material path: accept enforcement of the property and business provisions, demand the vested $150,000 payment, and seek only the maintenance necessary to avoid public-assistance eligibility. Both correctly reject Conclusions 1 and 2 while preserving Conclusions 3 through 5; no demonstrated difference changes Nora’s likely relief or negotiating position.", "short_basis": "Both answers place Nora on the same material path: accept enforcement of the property and business provisions, demand the vested $150,000 payment, and seek only the maintenance necessary to avoid public-assistance eligibility.", "answer_a_was": "claude-opus-5", "answer_b_was": "Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_a_display": "Claude Opus 5", "answer_b_display": "Qwen 3.8 27B", "winner": "TIE", "verdict_code": "TIE", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-2/verdicts/q31__Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__vs__claude-opus-5.json" }, "qwen38-deepseek": { "key": "qwen38-deepseek", "label": "Qwen 3.8 vs DeepSeek", "first": "qwen38", "second": "deepseek", "status": "tie", "result": "Functional tie", "short_result": "Tie", "basis": "Both answers correct Conclusions 1 and 2, preserve Conclusions 3 through 5, and place Nora on the same material path: enforce the $150,000 payment, seek only maintenance necessary to avoid public assistance, and do not challenge the separate-property or Quayside-appreciation provisions. Answer B’s additional negotiation details do not establish a different legal entitlement, action, or concrete outcome.", "short_basis": "Both answers correct Conclusions 1 and 2, preserve Conclusions 3 through 5, and place Nora on the same material path: enforce the $150,000 payment, seek only maintenance necessary to avoid public assistance, and do not challenge the separate-property or Quayside-appreciation provisions.", "answer_a_was": "DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS", "answer_b_was": "Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_a_display": "DeepSeek V4-Flash-0731", "answer_b_display": "Qwen 3.8 27B", "winner": "TIE", "verdict_code": "TIE", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-2/verdicts/q31__DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS__vs__Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL.json" }, "qwen38-qwen35": { "key": "qwen38-qwen35", "label": "Qwen 3.8 vs Qwen 3.5", "first": "qwen38", "second": "qwen35", "status": "tie", "result": "Functional tie", "short_result": "Tie", "basis": "Both answers place Nora on the same material path: accept likely enforcement of the separate-property and $150,000 provisions, abandon whole-agreement challenges based on lack of counsel or later hardship, and seek maintenance only as necessary to avoid public assistance. Their differences do not establish materially different professional conduct or client outcomes.", "short_basis": "Both answers place Nora on the same material path: accept likely enforcement of the separate-property and $150,000 provisions, abandon whole-agreement challenges based on lack of counsel or later hardship, and seek maintenance only as necessary to avoid public assistance.", "answer_a_was": "Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_b_was": "Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_a_display": "Qwen 3.8 27B", "answer_b_display": "Qwen 3.5 27B", "winner": "TIE", "verdict_code": "TIE", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-2/verdicts/q31__Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__vs__Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL.json" }, "deepseek-claude": { "key": "deepseek-claude", "label": "DeepSeek vs Claude", "first": "deepseek", "second": "claude", "status": "tie", "result": "Functional tie", "short_result": "Tie", "basis": "Both answers correct Conclusions 1 and 2, preserve Conclusions 3 through 5, and place Nora on the same material path: enforce the property, business-appreciation, and $150,000 provisions while seeking only the maintenance necessary to avoid public-assistance eligibility. Answer B’s additional negotiation proposals and procedural assertions do not establish a different legally available recovery or a concrete, record-supported outcome.", "short_basis": "Both answers correct Conclusions 1 and 2, preserve Conclusions 3 through 5, and place Nora on the same material path: enforce the property, business-appreciation, and $150,000 provisions while seeking only the maintenance necessary to avoid public-assistance eligibility.", "answer_a_was": "DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS", "answer_b_was": "claude-opus-5", "answer_a_display": "DeepSeek V4-Flash-0731", "answer_b_display": "Claude Opus 5", "winner": "TIE", "verdict_code": "TIE", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-2/verdicts/q31__DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS__vs__claude-opus-5.json" }, "deepseek-qwen35": { "key": "deepseek-qwen35", "label": "DeepSeek vs Qwen 3.5", "first": "deepseek", "second": "qwen35", "status": "tie", "result": "Functional tie", "short_result": "Tie", "basis": "Both answers put Nora on the same material path: treat the property and fixed-payment provisions as enforceable, abandon whole-agreement and later-unconscionability challenges, and seek only maintenance necessary to avoid public-assistance eligibility. Answer B’s unsupported statements about exceeding that threshold and immediate payment would be rejected by ordinary verification against the supplied rule and record.", "short_basis": "Both answers put Nora on the same material path: treat the property and fixed-payment provisions as enforceable, abandon whole-agreement and later-unconscionability challenges, and seek only maintenance necessary to avoid public-assistance eligibility.", "answer_a_was": "DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS", "answer_b_was": "Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_a_display": "DeepSeek V4-Flash-0731", "answer_b_display": "Qwen 3.5 27B", "winner": "TIE", "verdict_code": "TIE", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-2/verdicts/q31__DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS__vs__Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL.json" }, "qwen35-claude": { "key": "qwen35-claude", "label": "Qwen 3.5 vs Claude", "first": "qwen35", "second": "claude", "status": "tie", "result": "Functional tie", "short_result": "Tie", "basis": "Both answers place Nora on the same material path: abandon global invalidation, treat the property and $150,000 provisions as enforceable, and seek maintenance only as necessary to avoid public-assistance eligibility. Their tactical differences do not establish a concrete, record-supported change in Nora’s outcome.", "short_basis": "Both answers place Nora on the same material path: abandon global invalidation, treat the property and $150,000 provisions as enforceable, and seek maintenance only as necessary to avoid public-assistance eligibility.", "answer_a_was": "Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_b_was": "claude-opus-5", "answer_a_display": "Qwen 3.5 27B", "answer_b_display": "Claude Opus 5", "winner": "TIE", "verdict_code": "TIE", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-2/verdicts/q31__Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__vs__claude-opus-5.json" } }, "rejected_points": { "qwen38": 4, "deepseek": 0, "claude": 9, "qwen35": 6 }, "delivery_filter_matter": false }, { "qid": "q32", "number": 32, "series": "Series 2", "title": "The Workforce Audit Calendar", "category": "Employment compliance", "matter_page": "matters/q32/index.html", "question_file": "evidence/series-2/questions/q32.md", "key_file": "evidence/series-2/keys/q32.md", "answers": { "deepseek": "evidence/series-2/answers/DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS/DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS__q32_r1.md", "claude": "evidence/series-2/answers/claude-opus-5/claude-opus-5__q32_r1.md", "qwen35": "evidence/series-2/answers/Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL/Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__q32_r1.md", "qwen38": "evidence/series-2/answers/Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL/Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__q32_r1.md" }, "reasoning": { "deepseek": "evidence/series-2/answers/DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS/DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS__q32_r1.reasoning.md", "claude": "evidence/series-2/answers/claude-opus-5/claude-opus-5__q32_r1.reasoning.md", "qwen35": "evidence/series-2/answers/Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL/Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__q32_r1.reasoning.md", "qwen38": "evidence/series-2/answers/Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL/Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__q32_r1.reasoning.md" }, "pairings": { "qwen38-claude": { "key": "qwen38-claude", "label": "Qwen 3.8 vs Claude", "first": "qwen38", "second": "claude", "status": "tie", "result": "Functional tie", "short_result": "Tie", "basis": "Both answers direct Arclight to produce the requested forms and roster by April 8 absent a written extension, cure the technical defects by April 26 without backdating, and deliver mismatch notices by April 21 while calculating separate eight-business-day periods from actual employee receipt. Both reject unsupported admissions and immediate adverse action, preserve the same defenses and records, and condition any later work action on final nonconfirmation or independently verified evidence. No demonstrated difference changes Arclight’s or any employee’s material position.", "short_basis": "Both answers direct Arclight to produce the requested forms and roster by April 8 absent a written extension, cure the technical defects by April 26 without backdating, and deliver mismatch notices by April 21 while calculating separate eight-business-day periods from actual employee receipt.", "answer_a_was": "claude-opus-5", "answer_b_was": "Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_a_display": "Claude Opus 5", "answer_b_display": "Qwen 3.8 27B", "winner": "TIE", "verdict_code": "TIE", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-2/verdicts/q32__Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__vs__claude-opus-5.json" }, "qwen38-deepseek": { "key": "qwen38-deepseek", "label": "Qwen 3.8 vs DeepSeek", "first": "qwen38", "second": "deepseek", "status": "tie", "result": "Functional tie", "short_result": "Tie", "basis": "Both answers direct production by April 8 absent a written extension, timely technical cure by April 26, employee-notice delivery by April 21, individualized eight-business-day periods based on actual receipt, and no immediate adverse action. Their differences do not alter Arclight’s materially correct and safe path through production, cure, and final mismatch resolution.", "short_basis": "Both answers direct production by April 8 absent a written extension, timely technical cure by April 26, employee-notice delivery by April 21, individualized eight-business-day periods based on actual receipt, and no immediate adverse action.", "answer_a_was": "Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_b_was": "DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS", "answer_a_display": "Qwen 3.8 27B", "answer_b_display": "DeepSeek V4-Flash-0731", "winner": "TIE", "verdict_code": "TIE", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-2/verdicts/q32__DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS__vs__Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL.json" }, "qwen38-qwen35": { "key": "qwen38-qwen35", "label": "Qwen 3.8 vs Qwen 3.5", "first": "qwen38", "second": "qwen35", "status": "tie", "result": "Functional tie", "short_result": "Tie", "basis": "Both answers direct production by April 8 absent a written extension, limit production to requested records, preserve and currently correct the forms by April 26, deliver mismatch notices by April 21, calculate response periods from actual employee receipt, and prohibit immediate adverse action. Their differences do not alter Arclight’s materially correct and safe course on the supplied facts.", "short_basis": "Both answers direct production by April 8 absent a written extension, limit production to requested records, preserve and currently correct the forms by April 26, deliver mismatch notices by April 21, calculate response periods from actual employee receipt, and prohibit immediate adverse action.", "answer_a_was": "Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_b_was": "Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_a_display": "Qwen 3.5 27B", "answer_b_display": "Qwen 3.8 27B", "winner": "TIE", "verdict_code": "TIE", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-2/verdicts/q32__Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__vs__Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL.json" }, "deepseek-claude": { "key": "deepseek-claude", "label": "DeepSeek vs Claude", "first": "deepseek", "second": "claude", "status": "tie", "result": "Functional tie", "short_result": "Tie", "basis": "Both answers direct timely production by April 8, a written extension request if needed without relying on an ungranted request, limited responsive production, compliant current-dated corrections by April 26, individual notices by April 21, separately calculated employee response periods, verification of Marisol’s receipt, and no premature adverse action. After ordinary verification of the points logged below, both readers remain on the same materially correct and safe path through cure or final confirmation.", "short_basis": "Both answers direct timely production by April 8, a written extension request if needed without relying on an ungranted request, limited responsive production, compliant current-dated corrections by April 26, individual notices by April 21, separately calculated employee response periods, verification of…", "answer_a_was": "claude-opus-5", "answer_b_was": "DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS", "answer_a_display": "Claude Opus 5", "answer_b_display": "DeepSeek V4-Flash-0731", "winner": "TIE", "verdict_code": "TIE", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-2/verdicts/q32__DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS__vs__claude-opus-5.json" }, "deepseek-qwen35": { "key": "deepseek-qwen35", "label": "DeepSeek vs Qwen 3.5", "first": "deepseek", "second": "qwen35", "status": "tie", "result": "Functional tie", "short_result": "Tie", "basis": "Both answers direct production of the requested forms and payroll roster by April 8, cure by April 26 without backdating, delivery of mismatch notices by April 21, individualized response periods based on actual receipt, and no immediate suspension. Both also reject unsupported admissions and leave all three employees working while the tentative-mismatch process proceeds; no difference establishes a materially different client outcome on this record.", "short_basis": "Both answers direct production of the requested forms and payroll roster by April 8, cure by April 26 without backdating, delivery of mismatch notices by April 21, individualized response periods based on actual receipt, and no immediate suspension.", "answer_a_was": "DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS", "answer_b_was": "Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_a_display": "DeepSeek V4-Flash-0731", "answer_b_display": "Qwen 3.5 27B", "winner": "TIE", "verdict_code": "TIE", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-2/verdicts/q32__DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS__vs__Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL.json" }, "qwen35-claude": { "key": "qwen35-claude", "label": "Qwen 3.5 vs Claude", "first": "qwen35", "second": "claude", "status": "tie", "result": "Functional tie", "short_result": "Tie", "basis": "Both answers direct Arclight to produce the requested forms and roster by April 8, cure the technical defects by April 26 without altering originals, deliver mismatch notices by April 21, calculate separate eight-business-day periods from documented actual receipt, and take no immediate adverse action. Both also require development of Marisol’s missing renewal facts before reaching a work-authorization conclusion.", "short_basis": "Both answers direct Arclight to produce the requested forms and roster by April 8, cure the technical defects by April 26 without altering originals, deliver mismatch notices by April 21, calculate separate eight-business-day periods from documented actual receipt, and take no immediate adverse action.", "answer_a_was": "Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_b_was": "claude-opus-5", "answer_a_display": "Qwen 3.5 27B", "answer_b_display": "Claude Opus 5", "winner": "TIE", "verdict_code": "TIE", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-2/verdicts/q32__Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__vs__claude-opus-5.json" } }, "rejected_points": { "qwen38": 0, "deepseek": 2, "claude": 7, "qwen35": 5 }, "delivery_filter_matter": false }, { "qid": "q33", "number": 33, "series": "Series 2", "title": "The Stop-Time Proviso", "category": "Immigration", "matter_page": "matters/q33/index.html", "question_file": "evidence/series-2/questions/q33.md", "key_file": "evidence/series-2/keys/q33.md", "answers": { "deepseek": "evidence/series-2/answers/DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS/DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS__q33_r1.md", "claude": "evidence/series-2/answers/claude-opus-5/claude-opus-5__q33_r1.md", "qwen35": "evidence/series-2/answers/Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL/Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__q33_r1.md", "qwen38": "evidence/series-2/answers/Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL/Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__q33_r1.md" }, "reasoning": { "deepseek": "evidence/series-2/answers/DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS/DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS__q33_r1.reasoning.md", "claude": "evidence/series-2/answers/claude-opus-5/claude-opus-5__q33_r1.reasoning.md", "qwen35": "evidence/series-2/answers/Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL/Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__q33_r1.reasoning.md", "qwen38": "evidence/series-2/answers/Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL/Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__q33_r1.reasoning.md" }, "pairings": { "qwen38-claude": { "key": "qwen38-claude", "label": "Qwen 3.8 vs Claude", "first": "qwen38", "second": "claude", "status": "tie", "result": "Functional tie", "short_result": "Tie", "basis": "Both answers direct counsel to argue that residence stopped on April 20, 2021, that Idris accrued seven years, that none of the three dispositions is disqualifying or clock-stopping, and that counsel should substantiate good moral character and medical hardship through motions and documentary evidence. After ordinary verification rejects their isolated overstatements, both professionals remain on the same materially correct and safe litigation path.", "short_basis": "Both answers direct counsel to argue that residence stopped on April 20, 2021, that Idris accrued seven years, that none of the three dispositions is disqualifying or clock-stopping, and that counsel should substantiate good moral character and medical hardship through motions and documentary evidence.", "answer_a_was": "claude-opus-5", "answer_b_was": "Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_a_display": "Claude Opus 5", "answer_b_display": "Qwen 3.8 27B", "winner": "TIE", "verdict_code": "TIE", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-2/verdicts/q33__Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__vs__claude-opus-5.json" }, "qwen38-deepseek": { "key": "qwen38-deepseek", "label": "Qwen 3.8 vs DeepSeek", "first": "qwen38", "second": "deepseek", "status": "tie", "result": "Functional tie", "short_result": "Tie", "basis": "Both answers put counsel on the same materially correct path: rely on the April 20, 2021 stop date, establish seven years, invoke the cannabis exception, exclude audit expenses from fraud loss, reject the violence classification, and pursue cancellation with moral-character and hardship evidence. Differences in certainty, day-counting language, and evidentiary detail do not change any material filing, proof, or outcome.", "short_basis": "Both answers put counsel on the same materially correct path: rely on the April 20, 2021 stop date, establish seven years, invoke the cannabis exception, exclude audit expenses from fraud loss, reject the violence classification, and pursue cancellation with moral-character and hardship evidence.", "answer_a_was": "DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS", "answer_b_was": "Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_a_display": "DeepSeek V4-Flash-0731", "answer_b_display": "Qwen 3.8 27B", "winner": "TIE", "verdict_code": "TIE", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-2/verdicts/q33__DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS__vs__Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL.json" }, "qwen38-qwen35": { "key": "qwen38-qwen35", "label": "Qwen 3.8 vs Qwen 3.5", "first": "qwen38", "second": "qwen35", "status": "tie", "result": "Functional tie", "short_result": "Tie", "basis": "Both answers direct counsel to file for resident cancellation, establish April 20, 2021 as the stop date, treat the cannabis disposition as an excepted conviction, exclude audit costs from fraud loss, reject reckless injury as a crime of violence, and prove good moral character and medical hardship with substantially the same core evidence. No demonstrated difference would cause competent counsel to take a materially different path or produce a different result for Idris.", "short_basis": "Both answers direct counsel to file for resident cancellation, establish April 20, 2021 as the stop date, treat the cannabis disposition as an excepted conviction, exclude audit costs from fraud loss, reject reckless injury as a crime of violence, and prove good moral character and medical hardship with…", "answer_a_was": "Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_b_was": "Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_a_display": "Qwen 3.5 27B", "answer_b_display": "Qwen 3.8 27B", "winner": "TIE", "verdict_code": "TIE", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-2/verdicts/q33__Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__vs__Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL.json" }, "deepseek-claude": { "key": "deepseek-claude", "label": "DeepSeek vs Claude", "first": "deepseek", "second": "claude", "status": "tie", "result": "Functional tie", "short_result": "Tie", "basis": "Both answers direct counsel to the same materially correct path: establish April 20, 2021 as the stop date, prove seven years accrued, defeat each Rule 6 theory, and present record-based evidence of good moral character and exceptional medical hardship. Their procedural and evidentiary recommendations preserve the same eligibility arguments and lead to the same merits hearing.", "short_basis": "Both answers direct counsel to the same materially correct path: establish April 20, 2021 as the stop date, prove seven years accrued, defeat each Rule 6 theory, and present record-based evidence of good moral character and exceptional medical hardship.", "answer_a_was": "claude-opus-5", "answer_b_was": "DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS", "answer_a_display": "Claude Opus 5", "answer_b_display": "DeepSeek V4-Flash-0731", "winner": "TIE", "verdict_code": "TIE", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-2/verdicts/q33__DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS__vs__claude-opus-5.json" }, "deepseek-qwen35": { "key": "deepseek-qwen35", "label": "DeepSeek vs Qwen 3.5", "first": "deepseek", "second": "qwen35", "status": "tie", "result": "Functional tie", "short_result": "Tie", "basis": "Both answers place counsel on the same material path: assert stop time on April 20, 2021, establish seven years as of February 1, 2021, defeat each offense-based bar, prove good moral character and medical hardship, and proceed with the cancellation application. Answer B treats good moral character more cautiously, but both identify the actual adverse and rehabilitative record and recommend materially equivalent supporting evidence, so no different client outcome is demonstrated.", "short_basis": "Both answers place counsel on the same material path: assert stop time on April 20, 2021, establish seven years as of February 1, 2021, defeat each offense-based bar, prove good moral character and medical hardship, and proceed with the cancellation application.", "answer_a_was": "Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_b_was": "DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS", "answer_a_display": "Qwen 3.5 27B", "answer_b_display": "DeepSeek V4-Flash-0731", "winner": "TIE", "verdict_code": "TIE", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-2/verdicts/q33__DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS__vs__Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL.json" }, "qwen35-claude": { "key": "qwen35-claude", "label": "Qwen 3.5 vs Claude", "first": "qwen35", "second": "claude", "status": "tie", "result": "Functional tie", "short_result": "Tie", "basis": "Both answers direct counsel to the same material path: establish April 20, 2021 as stop time, show seven years accrued, defeat each criminal disqualifier, and prove good moral character and medical hardship from the actual record. Answer B treats good moral character more cautiously and proposes broader corroboration, but Answer A also relies on restitution, sentence completion, employment, and the absence of other misconduct; the record does not demonstrate that the additional framing or evidence would change the ruling.", "short_basis": "Both answers direct counsel to the same material path: establish April 20, 2021 as stop time, show seven years accrued, defeat each criminal disqualifier, and prove good moral character and medical hardship from the actual record.", "answer_a_was": "Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_b_was": "claude-opus-5", "answer_a_display": "Qwen 3.5 27B", "answer_b_display": "Claude Opus 5", "winner": "TIE", "verdict_code": "TIE", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-2/verdicts/q33__Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__vs__claude-opus-5.json" } }, "rejected_points": { "qwen38": 2, "deepseek": 1, "claude": 3, "qwen35": 8 }, "delivery_filter_matter": false }, { "qid": "q34", "number": 34, "series": "Series 2", "title": "The Installers on Form 1099", "category": "Employment classification", "matter_page": "matters/q34/index.html", "question_file": "evidence/series-2/questions/q34.md", "key_file": "evidence/series-2/keys/q34.md", "answers": { "deepseek": "evidence/series-2/answers/DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS/DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS__q34_r1.md", "claude": "evidence/series-2/answers/claude-opus-5/claude-opus-5__q34_r1.md", "qwen35": "evidence/series-2/answers/Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL/Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__q34_r1.md", "qwen38": "evidence/series-2/answers/Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL/Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__q34_r1.md" }, "reasoning": { "deepseek": "evidence/series-2/answers/DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS/DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS__q34_r1.reasoning.md", "claude": "evidence/series-2/answers/claude-opus-5/claude-opus-5__q34_r1.reasoning.md", "qwen35": "evidence/series-2/answers/Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL/Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__q34_r1.reasoning.md", "qwen38": "evidence/series-2/answers/Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL/Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__q34_r1.reasoning.md" }, "pairings": { "qwen38-claude": { "key": "qwen38-claude", "label": "Qwen 3.8 vs Claude", "first": "qwen38", "second": "claude", "status": "tie", "result": "Functional tie", "short_result": "Tie", "basis": "Both answers reject a zero reserve, calculate the same $354,922.40 nonwillful reserve, identify element B as likely fatal, and direct immediate preservation and factual investigation before conceding classification. Both lead Northbank toward prospective correction and a fact-supported closing agreement or limited contest, with no demonstrated difference in the company’s material position.", "short_basis": "Both answers reject a zero reserve, calculate the same $354,922.40 nonwillful reserve, identify element B as likely fatal, and direct immediate preservation and factual investigation before conceding classification.", "answer_a_was": "claude-opus-5", "answer_b_was": "Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_a_display": "Claude Opus 5", "answer_b_display": "Qwen 3.8 27B", "winner": "TIE", "verdict_code": "TIE", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-2/verdicts/q34__Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__vs__claude-opus-5.json" }, "qwen38-deepseek": { "key": "qwen38-deepseek", "label": "Qwen 3.8 vs DeepSeek", "first": "qwen38", "second": "deepseek", "status": "tie", "result": "Functional tie", "short_result": "Tie", "basis": "Both answers direct Northbank to reject the zero-reserve position, record the same $354,922.40 conditional nonwillful reserve, preserve and investigate the missing A-and-C facts, avoid conceding status prematurely, and then consider prospective reclassification or a closing agreement. Their differences do not put Northbank on materially different legal, financial, evidentiary, or operational paths.", "short_basis": "Both answers direct Northbank to reject the zero-reserve position, record the same $354,922.40 conditional nonwillful reserve, preserve and investigate the missing A-and-C facts, avoid conceding status prematurely, and then consider prospective reclassification or a closing agreement.", "answer_a_was": "DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS", "answer_b_was": "Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_a_display": "DeepSeek V4-Flash-0731", "answer_b_display": "Qwen 3.8 27B", "winner": "TIE", "verdict_code": "TIE", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-2/verdicts/q34__DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS__vs__Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL.json" }, "qwen38-qwen35": { "key": "qwen38-qwen35", "label": "Qwen 3.8 vs Qwen 3.5", "first": "qwen38", "second": "qwen35", "status": "tie", "result": "Functional tie", "short_result": "Tie", "basis": "Both answers reject the zero-reserve position, conclude element B likely fails, calculate the same $354,922.40 nonwillful reserve, and direct immediate preservation and fact-finding on elements A and C before conceding status or choosing between contest and a closing agreement. Their readers therefore follow the same materially correct and safe path.", "short_basis": "Both answers reject the zero-reserve position, conclude element B likely fails, calculate the same $354,922.40 nonwillful reserve, and direct immediate preservation and fact-finding on elements A and C before conceding status or choosing between contest and a closing agreement.", "answer_a_was": "Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_b_was": "Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_a_display": "Qwen 3.8 27B", "answer_b_display": "Qwen 3.5 27B", "winner": "TIE", "verdict_code": "TIE", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-2/verdicts/q34__Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__vs__Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL.json" }, "deepseek-claude": { "key": "deepseek-claude", "label": "DeepSeek vs Claude", "first": "deepseek", "second": "claude", "status": "tie", "result": "Functional tie", "short_result": "Tie", "basis": "Both answers direct Northbank to reserve $354,922.40 now, preserve evidence, investigate the missing A and C facts, avoid conceding status prematurely, consider prospective correction, and evaluate a closing agreement after accurate fact development. No difference establishes a materially different client outcome on the supplied record.", "short_basis": "Both answers direct Northbank to reserve $354,922.40 now, preserve evidence, investigate the missing A and C facts, avoid conceding status prematurely, consider prospective correction, and evaluate a closing agreement after accurate fact development.", "answer_a_was": "claude-opus-5", "answer_b_was": "DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS", "answer_a_display": "Claude Opus 5", "answer_b_display": "DeepSeek V4-Flash-0731", "winner": "TIE", "verdict_code": "TIE", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-2/verdicts/q34__DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS__vs__claude-opus-5.json" }, "deepseek-qwen35": { "key": "deepseek-qwen35", "label": "DeepSeek vs Qwen 3.5", "first": "deepseek", "second": "qwen35", "status": "tie", "result": "Functional tie", "short_result": "Tie", "basis": "Both answers reject a zero reserve, calculate the same $354,922.40 nonwillful reserve, treat element B as likely failed, and direct Northbank to preserve records and investigate elements A and C before conceding status or choosing a final agency position. Their differences do not alter Northbank’s material legal, financial, or procedural path.", "short_basis": "Both answers reject a zero reserve, calculate the same $354,922.40 nonwillful reserve, treat element B as likely failed, and direct Northbank to preserve records and investigate elements A and C before conceding status or choosing a final agency position.", "answer_a_was": "Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_b_was": "DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS", "answer_a_display": "Qwen 3.5 27B", "answer_b_display": "DeepSeek V4-Flash-0731", "winner": "TIE", "verdict_code": "TIE", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-2/verdicts/q34__DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS__vs__Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL.json" }, "qwen35-claude": { "key": "qwen35-claude", "label": "Qwen 3.5 vs Claude", "first": "qwen35", "second": "claude", "status": "tie", "result": "Functional tie", "short_result": "Tie", "basis": "Both answers conclude that element B likely fails, reject reliance on contractual labels, calculate the same $354,922.40 reserve, and direct preservation and investigation of control and independent-trade facts before any concession. Both also recommend prospective correction and pursuing a closing agreement after fact development, leaving Northbank on the same materially safe path.", "short_basis": "Both answers conclude that element B likely fails, reject reliance on contractual labels, calculate the same $354,922.40 reserve, and direct preservation and investigation of control and independent-trade facts before any concession.", "answer_a_was": "claude-opus-5", "answer_b_was": "Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_a_display": "Claude Opus 5", "answer_b_display": "Qwen 3.5 27B", "winner": "TIE", "verdict_code": "TIE", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-2/verdicts/q34__Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__vs__claude-opus-5.json" } }, "rejected_points": { "qwen38": 4, "deepseek": 0, "claude": 8, "qwen35": 3 }, "delivery_filter_matter": false }, { "qid": "q35", "number": 35, "series": "Series 2", "title": "The Account Before the Bank List Arrives", "category": "Tax compliance", "matter_page": "matters/q35/index.html", "question_file": "evidence/series-2/questions/q35.md", "key_file": "evidence/series-2/keys/q35.md", "answers": { "deepseek": "evidence/series-2/answers/DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS/DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS__q35_r1.md", "claude": "evidence/series-2/answers/claude-opus-5/claude-opus-5__q35_r1.md", "qwen35": "evidence/series-2/answers/Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL/Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__q35_r1.md", "qwen38": "evidence/series-2/answers/Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL/Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__q35_r1.md" }, "reasoning": { "deepseek": "evidence/series-2/answers/DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS/DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS__q35_r1.reasoning.md", "claude": "evidence/series-2/answers/claude-opus-5/claude-opus-5__q35_r1.reasoning.md", "qwen35": "evidence/series-2/answers/Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL/Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__q35_r1.reasoning.md", "qwen38": "evidence/series-2/answers/Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL/Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__q35_r1.reasoning.md" }, "pairings": { "qwen38-claude": { "key": "qwen38-claude", "label": "Qwen 3.8 vs Claude", "first": "qwen38", "second": "claude", "status": "tie", "result": "Functional tie", "short_result": "Tie", "basis": "Both answers direct Priya to make an immediate, truthful voluntary disclosure at a fixed $228,000 cost, reject the unsupported nonwillful certification, and advise against quiet returns or waiting because of higher expected costs, referral exposure, and imminent loss of eligibility. Both leave a competent professional on the same materially correct and safe course with substantially identical liquidity planning.", "short_basis": "Both answers direct Priya to make an immediate, truthful voluntary disclosure at a fixed $228,000 cost, reject the unsupported nonwillful certification, and advise against quiet returns or waiting because of higher expected costs, referral exposure, and imminent loss of eligibility.", "answer_a_was": "claude-opus-5", "answer_b_was": "Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_a_display": "Claude Opus 5", "answer_b_display": "Qwen 3.8 27B", "winner": "TIE", "verdict_code": "TIE", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-2/verdicts/q35__Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__vs__claude-opus-5.json" }, "qwen38-deepseek": { "key": "qwen38-deepseek", "label": "Qwen 3.8 vs DeepSeek", "first": "qwen38", "second": "deepseek", "status": "tie", "result": "Functional tie", "short_result": "Tie", "basis": "Both answers direct Priya to make an immediate, truthful voluntary disclosure for $228,000 before the bank transfer ends eligibility, reject the unsupported nonwillful certification, and advise against quiet returns or waiting. They calculate the same costs, referral risks, liquidity consequences, and materially safe course of action.", "short_basis": "Both answers direct Priya to make an immediate, truthful voluntary disclosure for $228,000 before the bank transfer ends eligibility, reject the unsupported nonwillful certification, and advise against quiet returns or waiting.", "answer_a_was": "Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_b_was": "DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS", "answer_a_display": "Qwen 3.8 27B", "answer_b_display": "DeepSeek V4-Flash-0731", "winner": "TIE", "verdict_code": "TIE", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-2/verdicts/q35__DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS__vs__Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL.json" }, "qwen38-qwen35": { "key": "qwen38-qwen35", "label": "Qwen 3.8 vs Qwen 3.5", "first": "qwen38", "second": "qwen35", "status": "tie", "result": "Functional tie", "short_result": "Tie", "basis": "Both answers lead Priya to the same materially correct path: reject the unsupported nonwillful certification, immediately pursue truthful voluntary disclosure before the bank transfer, and arrange payment of the fixed $228,000 cost. After ordinary verification of Answer A’s inconsistent risk labels and invented 72-hour target, neither reader acts differently in a way that changes Priya’s financial, criminal-referral, eligibility, or liquidity position.", "short_basis": "Both answers lead Priya to the same materially correct path: reject the unsupported nonwillful certification, immediately pursue truthful voluntary disclosure before the bank transfer, and arrange payment of the fixed $228,000 cost.", "answer_a_was": "Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_b_was": "Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_a_display": "Qwen 3.5 27B", "answer_b_display": "Qwen 3.8 27B", "winner": "TIE", "verdict_code": "TIE", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-2/verdicts/q35__Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__vs__Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL.json" }, "deepseek-claude": { "key": "deepseek-claude", "label": "DeepSeek vs Claude", "first": "deepseek", "second": "claude", "status": "tie", "result": "Functional tie", "short_result": "Tie", "basis": "Both readers would advise immediate voluntary disclosure before Larkspur transfers Priya’s identity, reject the unsupported nonwillful certification, plan payment of the same $228,000, and avoid quiet returns or waiting. Both provide the same material calculations, criminal-risk comparisons, liquidity assessment, and safe course of action; Answer B’s additional assertions do not establish a different client outcome.", "short_basis": "Both readers would advise immediate voluntary disclosure before Larkspur transfers Priya’s identity, reject the unsupported nonwillful certification, plan payment of the same $228,000, and avoid quiet returns or waiting.", "answer_a_was": "DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS", "answer_b_was": "claude-opus-5", "answer_a_display": "DeepSeek V4-Flash-0731", "answer_b_display": "Claude Opus 5", "winner": "TIE", "verdict_code": "TIE", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-2/verdicts/q35__DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS__vs__claude-opus-5.json" }, "deepseek-qwen35": { "key": "deepseek-qwen35", "label": "DeepSeek vs Qwen 3.5", "first": "deepseek", "second": "qwen35", "status": "tie", "result": "Functional tie", "short_result": "Tie", "basis": "Both answers place Priya on the same materially correct path: immediately make a truthful voluntary disclosure, pay $228,000, reject the unsupported nonwillful certification, and avoid quiet filing or waiting. Answer A’s discrepancies are readily rejected from the supplied rules or its own calculations and do not demonstrate materially different conduct or consequences.", "short_basis": "Both answers place Priya on the same materially correct path: immediately make a truthful voluntary disclosure, pay $228,000, reject the unsupported nonwillful certification, and avoid quiet filing or waiting.", "answer_a_was": "Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_b_was": "DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS", "answer_a_display": "Qwen 3.5 27B", "answer_b_display": "DeepSeek V4-Flash-0731", "winner": "TIE", "verdict_code": "TIE", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-2/verdicts/q35__DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS__vs__Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL.json" }, "qwen35-claude": { "key": "qwen35-claude", "label": "Qwen 3.5 vs Claude", "first": "qwen35", "second": "claude", "status": "tie", "result": "Functional tie", "short_result": "Tie", "basis": "Both readers would reject the nonwillful procedure and promptly enter voluntary disclosure while eligibility remains, paying $228,000 for protection against criminal referral for the disclosed conduct. The disputed timing, probability labeling, liquidity, and document-handling differences do not establish a different material outcome on the supplied record.", "short_basis": "Both readers would reject the nonwillful procedure and promptly enter voluntary disclosure while eligibility remains, paying $228,000 for protection against criminal referral for the disclosed conduct.", "answer_a_was": "Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_b_was": "claude-opus-5", "answer_a_display": "Qwen 3.5 27B", "answer_b_display": "Claude Opus 5", "winner": "TIE", "verdict_code": "TIE", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-2/verdicts/q35__Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__vs__claude-opus-5.json" } }, "rejected_points": { "qwen38": 3, "deepseek": 0, "claude": 8, "qwen35": 13 }, "delivery_filter_matter": false }, { "qid": "q36", "number": 36, "series": "Series 2", "title": "The Subpoena and the Privilege Log", "category": "Discovery and privilege", "matter_page": "matters/q36/index.html", "question_file": "evidence/series-2/questions/q36.md", "key_file": "evidence/series-2/keys/q36.md", "answers": { "deepseek": "evidence/series-2/answers/DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS/DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS__q36_r1.md", "claude": "evidence/series-2/answers/claude-opus-5/claude-opus-5__q36_r1.md", "qwen35": "evidence/series-2/answers/Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL/Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__q36_r1.md", "qwen38": "evidence/series-2/answers/Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL/Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__q36_r1.md" }, "reasoning": { "deepseek": "evidence/series-2/answers/DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS/DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS__q36_r1.reasoning.md", "claude": "evidence/series-2/answers/claude-opus-5/claude-opus-5__q36_r1.reasoning.md", "qwen35": "evidence/series-2/answers/Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL/Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__q36_r1.reasoning.md", "qwen38": "evidence/series-2/answers/Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL/Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__q36_r1.reasoning.md" }, "pairings": { "qwen38-claude": { "key": "qwen38-claude", "label": "Qwen 3.8 vs Claude", "first": "qwen38", "second": "claude", "status": "local", "result": "Qwen 3.8 win", "short_result": "Qwen 3.8 win", "basis": "Answer A directs Oriole to produce all factual data generated during Emberline’s counsel-directed litigation-and-enforcement engagement, even though Rule 5 protects material prepared primarily because of anticipated litigation or enforcement. Answer B instead applies that test to forensic reports and related materials while producing ordinary-course engineering data, preserving potentially protected work product from deliberate disclosure that the clawback cannot cure.", "short_basis": "Answer A directs Oriole to produce all factual data generated during Emberline’s counsel-directed litigation-and-enforcement engagement, even though Rule 5 protects material prepared primarily because of anticipated litigation or enforcement.", "answer_a_was": "claude-opus-5", "answer_b_was": "Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_a_display": "Claude Opus 5", "answer_b_display": "Qwen 3.8 27B", "winner": "Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "verdict_code": "B", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-2/verdicts/q36__Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__vs__claude-opus-5.json" }, "qwen38-deepseek": { "key": "qwen38-deepseek", "label": "Qwen 3.8 vs DeepSeek", "first": "qwen38", "second": "deepseek", "status": "tie", "result": "Functional tie", "short_result": "Tie", "basis": "Both answers reject blanket withholding, preserve responsive sources, produce reasonably available nonprivileged material, investigate reseller control, propose concrete narrowing and phased production, and protect only properly logged privilege and work product. Their differences in date ranges, search design, production timing, and protocol detail do not establish a materially different legal, evidentiary, or operational outcome.", "short_basis": "Both answers reject blanket withholding, preserve responsive sources, produce reasonably available nonprivileged material, investigate reseller control, propose concrete narrowing and phased production, and protect only properly logged privilege and work product.", "answer_a_was": "DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS", "answer_b_was": "Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_a_display": "DeepSeek V4-Flash-0731", "answer_b_display": "Qwen 3.8 27B", "winner": "TIE", "verdict_code": "TIE", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-2/verdicts/q36__DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS__vs__Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL.json" }, "qwen38-qwen35": { "key": "qwen38-qwen35", "label": "Qwen 3.8 vs Qwen 3.5", "first": "qwen38", "second": "qwen35", "status": "tie", "result": "Functional tie", "short_result": "Tie", "basis": "Both answers place Oriole on the same material path: preserve responsive sources, produce available nonprivileged material, investigate reseller control, narrow the 18-million-message search, segregate privileged material, log withholding, and use a reasonable-review clawback protocol. After ordinary verification rejects Answer B’s unsupported dates and production conditions, no remaining difference is shown to alter Oriole’s legal, evidentiary, financial, or operational position.", "short_basis": "Both answers place Oriole on the same material path: preserve responsive sources, produce available nonprivileged material, investigate reseller control, narrow the 18-million-message search, segregate privileged material, log withholding, and use a reasonable-review clawback protocol.", "answer_a_was": "Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_b_was": "Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_a_display": "Qwen 3.8 27B", "answer_b_display": "Qwen 3.5 27B", "winner": "TIE", "verdict_code": "TIE", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-2/verdicts/q36__Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__vs__Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL.json" }, "deepseek-claude": { "key": "deepseek-claude", "label": "DeepSeek vs Claude", "first": "deepseek", "second": "claude", "status": "local", "result": "DeepSeek win", "short_result": "DeepSeek win", "basis": "Answer B affirmatively commits Oriole to producing all factual data generated under Emberline’s counsel-directed post-event engagement, although the governing rule protects material prepared primarily because of anticipated litigation or enforcement. Answer A instead preserves that work product, while producing ordinary-course engineering material and segregable nonprivileged data. B’s approach would disclose protected investigative material to the agency without support from the offered inadvertent-production clawback. Exact difference. B promises to produce “all factual data generated under the Track 2 engagement”; A withholds materials prepared under counsel’s litigation-risk engagement while producing segregable ordinary engineering data where feasible. Different conduct. A’s reader reviews counsel-directed Emberline materials for work product and withholds and logs protected items; B’s reader deliberately produces counsel-directed measurements, test outputs, and imagery. Concrete consequence. Oriole discloses protected enforcement and litigation work product to the investigating agency, exposing counsel-directed testing and degrading Oriole’s evidentiary position. Record support. Rule 5 protects material prepared primarily because of anticipated litigation or enforcement, and the facts state that counsel separately retained Emberline to analyze those risks. Material magnitude. Disclosure gives the investigating agency access to protected post-event investigative material bearing on causation and exposure. Likelihood. B expressly schedules production of all Track 2 factual data, so the disclosure is an immediate production commitment rather than a hypothetical possibility. No safe neutralization by ordinary verification. Correcting B requires re-reviewing and rebuilding the Track 2 production set document by document; the offered clawback does not excuse deliberate overproduction.", "short_basis": "Answer B affirmatively commits Oriole to producing all factual data generated under Emberline’s counsel-directed post-event engagement, although the governing rule protects material prepared primarily because of anticipated litigation or enforcement.", "answer_a_was": "DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS", "answer_b_was": "claude-opus-5", "answer_a_display": "DeepSeek V4-Flash-0731", "answer_b_display": "Claude Opus 5", "winner": "DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS", "verdict_code": "A", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-2/verdicts/q36__DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS__vs__claude-opus-5.json" }, "deepseek-qwen35": { "key": "deepseek-qwen35", "label": "DeepSeek vs Qwen 3.5", "first": "deepseek", "second": "qwen35", "status": "tie", "result": "Functional tie", "short_result": "Tie", "basis": "Both readers preserve responsive sources, investigate reseller control, produce the incident data and ordinary-course Emberline reports, narrow Requests 1 and 2, and segregate and log privileged material while producing underlying facts. Ordinary verification rejects Answer B’s conditions on producing reasonably available nonprivileged material; once rejected, no record-supported difference in the client’s conduct or outcome remains.", "short_basis": "Both readers preserve responsive sources, investigate reseller control, produce the incident data and ordinary-course Emberline reports, narrow Requests 1 and 2, and segregate and log privileged material while producing underlying facts.", "answer_a_was": "DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS", "answer_b_was": "Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_a_display": "DeepSeek V4-Flash-0731", "answer_b_display": "Qwen 3.5 27B", "winner": "TIE", "verdict_code": "TIE", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-2/verdicts/q36__DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS__vs__Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL.json" }, "qwen35-claude": { "key": "qwen35-claude", "label": "Qwen 3.5 vs Claude", "first": "qwen35", "second": "claude", "status": "tie", "result": "Functional tie", "short_result": "Tie", "basis": "After ordinary verification, both answers put counsel on the same material path: preserve sources, investigate reseller control, promptly produce available nonprivileged material, narrow Requests 1–2 concretely, review Requests 3–4 document by document, separate Emberline’s ordinary work from counsel-directed work product, and use detailed privilege logs and a clawback protocol. Answer B’s conditions on production are facially inconsistent with Rule 3 and safely removed because it already identifies the material and production timing; Answer A’s unsupported factual particulars are likewise rejected before filing. No record-supported difference in client outcome remains.", "short_basis": "After ordinary verification, both answers put counsel on the same material path: preserve sources, investigate reseller control, promptly produce available nonprivileged material, narrow Requests 1–2 concretely, review Requests 3–4 document by document, separate Emberline’s ordinary work from…", "answer_a_was": "claude-opus-5", "answer_b_was": "Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_a_display": "Claude Opus 5", "answer_b_display": "Qwen 3.5 27B", "winner": "TIE", "verdict_code": "TIE", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-2/verdicts/q36__Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__vs__claude-opus-5.json" } }, "rejected_points": { "qwen38": 1, "deepseek": 3, "claude": 12, "qwen35": 11 }, "delivery_filter_matter": false }, { "qid": "q37", "number": 37, "series": "Series 2", "title": "The Engineer's License Hearing", "category": "Administrative licensing", "matter_page": "matters/q37/index.html", "question_file": "evidence/series-2/questions/q37.md", "key_file": "evidence/series-2/keys/q37.md", "answers": { "deepseek": "evidence/series-2/answers/DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS/DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS__q37_r1.md", "claude": "evidence/series-2/answers/claude-opus-5/claude-opus-5__q37_r1.md", "qwen35": "evidence/series-2/answers/Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL/Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__q37_r1.md", "qwen38": "evidence/series-2/answers/Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL/Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__q37_r1.md" }, "reasoning": { "deepseek": "evidence/series-2/answers/DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS/DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS__q37_r1.reasoning.md", "claude": "evidence/series-2/answers/claude-opus-5/claude-opus-5__q37_r1.reasoning.md", "qwen35": "evidence/series-2/answers/Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL/Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__q37_r1.reasoning.md", "qwen38": "evidence/series-2/answers/Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL/Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__q37_r1.reasoning.md" }, "pairings": { "qwen38-claude": { "key": "qwen38-claude", "label": "Qwen 3.8 vs Claude", "first": "qwen38", "second": "claude", "status": "tie", "result": "Functional tie", "short_result": "Tie", "basis": "Both readers would reject the current all-charges offer, immediately obtain the complete prior-discipline file, seek an extension and disclosure order or continuance, preserve the fraud denial, and condition settlement versus hearing on whether a qualifying final order exists. After ordinary verification rejects unsupported collateral predictions, both answers place Dana on the same materially safe procedural and settlement path.", "short_basis": "Both readers would reject the current all-charges offer, immediately obtain the complete prior-discipline file, seek an extension and disclosure order or continuance, preserve the fraud denial, and condition settlement versus hearing on whether a qualifying final order exists.", "answer_a_was": "Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_b_was": "claude-opus-5", "answer_a_display": "Qwen 3.8 27B", "answer_b_display": "Claude Opus 5", "winner": "TIE", "verdict_code": "TIE", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-2/verdicts/q37__Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__vs__claude-opus-5.json" }, "qwen38-deepseek": { "key": "qwen38-deepseek", "label": "Qwen 3.8 vs DeepSeek", "first": "qwen38", "second": "deepseek", "status": "tie", "result": "Functional tie", "short_result": "Tie", "basis": "Both answers direct counsel to obtain the complete prior-discipline file, seek an offer extension and disclosure relief, reject any immediate fraud admission, pursue a no-fraud negotiated resolution, and condition the hearing-versus-settlement decision on whether the prior matter is countable discipline. Their differing fallback positions and proposed settlement terms do not establish a record-supported difference in Dana’s ultimate sanction or other material position.", "short_basis": "Both answers direct counsel to obtain the complete prior-discipline file, seek an offer extension and disclosure relief, reject any immediate fraud admission, pursue a no-fraud negotiated resolution, and condition the hearing-versus-settlement decision on whether the prior matter is countable discipline.", "answer_a_was": "DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS", "answer_b_was": "Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_a_display": "DeepSeek V4-Flash-0731", "answer_b_display": "Qwen 3.8 27B", "winner": "TIE", "verdict_code": "TIE", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-2/verdicts/q37__DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS__vs__Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL.json" }, "qwen38-qwen35": { "key": "qwen38-qwen35", "label": "Qwen 3.8 vs Qwen 3.5", "first": "qwen38", "second": "qwen35", "status": "tie", "result": "Functional tie", "short_result": "Tie", "basis": "Both readers would immediately request the complete prior-discipline file, seek extension of the offer and a continuance or disclosure order, reject any all-charges admission, and condition settlement versus hearing strategy on whether a countable final order exists. Both would defend fraud as an unproven template error, contest negligent supervision and emergency suspension, use the junior engineer’s records, and present remediation without admitting fraud; no concrete difference in Dana’s position is demonstrated.", "short_basis": "Both readers would immediately request the complete prior-discipline file, seek extension of the offer and a continuance or disclosure order, reject any all-charges admission, and condition settlement versus hearing strategy on whether a countable final order exists.", "answer_a_was": "Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_b_was": "Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_a_display": "Qwen 3.5 27B", "answer_b_display": "Qwen 3.8 27B", "winner": "TIE", "verdict_code": "TIE", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-2/verdicts/q37__Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__vs__Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL.json" }, "deepseek-claude": { "key": "deepseek-claude", "label": "DeepSeek vs Claude", "first": "deepseek", "second": "claude", "status": "tie", "result": "Functional tie", "short_result": "Tie", "basis": "Both answers direct counsel not to accept the current offer before immediately obtaining the complete prior-discipline file, seeking an extension or continuance, and countering with a non-fraud resolution. Both condition final settlement-versus-hearing advice on whether the prior matter is countable discipline; the additional investigative and litigation steps in Answer B do not establish a concrete different client outcome on the supplied record.", "short_basis": "Both answers direct counsel not to accept the current offer before immediately obtaining the complete prior-discipline file, seeking an extension or continuance, and countering with a non-fraud resolution.", "answer_a_was": "DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS", "answer_b_was": "claude-opus-5", "answer_a_display": "DeepSeek V4-Flash-0731", "answer_b_display": "Claude Opus 5", "winner": "TIE", "verdict_code": "TIE", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-2/verdicts/q37__DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS__vs__claude-opus-5.json" }, "deepseek-qwen35": { "key": "deepseek-qwen35", "label": "DeepSeek vs Qwen 3.5", "first": "deepseek", "second": "qwen35", "status": "tie", "result": "Functional tie", "short_result": "Tie", "basis": "Both answers direct counsel to obtain the prior-discipline file immediately, seek an offer extension and continuance or disclosure relief, reject any present fraud admission, and counter with a negligence-based resolution preserving denial of fraud. Both condition final settlement-versus-hearing advice on whether the prior matter is countable discipline and place Dana on the same materially safe path regarding the charges, evidence, mitigation, and emergency suspension.", "short_basis": "Both answers direct counsel to obtain the prior-discipline file immediately, seek an offer extension and continuance or disclosure relief, reject any present fraud admission, and counter with a negligence-based resolution preserving denial of fraud.", "answer_a_was": "Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_b_was": "DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS", "answer_a_display": "Qwen 3.5 27B", "answer_b_display": "DeepSeek V4-Flash-0731", "winner": "TIE", "verdict_code": "TIE", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-2/verdicts/q37__DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS__vs__Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL.json" }, "qwen35-claude": { "key": "qwen35-claude", "label": "Qwen 3.5 vs Claude", "first": "qwen35", "second": "claude", "status": "tie", "result": "Functional tie", "short_result": "Tie", "basis": "Both answers direct counsel to reject the current fraud-admission offer, immediately obtain the complete prior-discipline file, seek disclosure and a continuance or offer extension, and pursue a non-fraud resolution conditioned on whether a qualifying final order exists. Both also preserve the same hearing defenses: lack of proven scienter, documented remote supervision, weak anonymous hearsay, absence of imminent danger, and mitigation through corrected controls.", "short_basis": "Both answers direct counsel to reject the current fraud-admission offer, immediately obtain the complete prior-discipline file, seek disclosure and a continuance or offer extension, and pursue a non-fraud resolution conditioned on whether a qualifying final order exists.", "answer_a_was": "Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_b_was": "claude-opus-5", "answer_a_display": "Qwen 3.5 27B", "answer_b_display": "Claude Opus 5", "winner": "TIE", "verdict_code": "TIE", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-2/verdicts/q37__Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__vs__claude-opus-5.json" } }, "rejected_points": { "qwen38": 7, "deepseek": 2, "claude": 10, "qwen35": 6 }, "delivery_filter_matter": false }, { "qid": "q38", "number": 38, "series": "Series 2", "title": "The Rule That Changed After Comment Closed", "category": "Administrative law", "matter_page": "matters/q38/index.html", "question_file": "evidence/series-2/questions/q38.md", "key_file": "evidence/series-2/keys/q38.md", "answers": { "deepseek": "evidence/series-2/answers/DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS/DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS__q38_r1.md", "claude": "evidence/series-2/answers/claude-opus-5/claude-opus-5__q38_r1.md", "qwen35": "evidence/series-2/answers/Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL/Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__q38_r1.md", "qwen38": "evidence/series-2/answers/Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL/Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__q38_r1.md" }, "reasoning": { "deepseek": "evidence/series-2/answers/DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS/DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS__q38_r1.reasoning.md", "claude": "evidence/series-2/answers/claude-opus-5/claude-opus-5__q38_r1.reasoning.md", "qwen35": "evidence/series-2/answers/Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL/Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__q38_r1.reasoning.md", "qwen38": "evidence/series-2/answers/Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL/Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__q38_r1.reasoning.md" }, "pairings": { "qwen38-claude": { "key": "qwen38-claude", "label": "Qwen 3.8 vs Claude", "first": "qwen38", "second": "claude", "status": "tie", "result": "Functional tie", "short_result": "Tie", "basis": "Both answers direct Meridian to file immediately, seek an expedited stay before the contract deadline, challenge the threshold and supply-chain requirements for inadequate notice, demand reopening over the undisclosed model, press the significant-comment and good-cause defects, defeat harmlessness, and seek vacatur or remand. Their differences do not alter Meridian’s materially safe procedural path or requested protection.", "short_basis": "Both answers direct Meridian to file immediately, seek an expedited stay before the contract deadline, challenge the threshold and supply-chain requirements for inadequate notice, demand reopening over the undisclosed model, press the significant-comment and good-cause defects, defeat harmlessness, and seek…", "answer_a_was": "claude-opus-5", "answer_b_was": "Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_a_display": "Claude Opus 5", "answer_b_display": "Qwen 3.8 27B", "winner": "TIE", "verdict_code": "TIE", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-2/verdicts/q38__Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__vs__claude-opus-5.json" }, "qwen38-deepseek": { "key": "qwen38-deepseek", "label": "Qwen 3.8 vs DeepSeek", "first": "qwen38", "second": "deepseek", "status": "tie", "result": "Functional tie", "short_result": "Tie", "basis": "Both answers direct Meridian to file immediately, seek expedited stay relief before the $2.4 million commitment, and challenge the threshold, supplier/contractor requirements, undisclosed model, response to comments, and immediate effectiveness on procedural grounds. Both therefore place Meridian on the same materially correct and safe litigation path with the same available remedies.", "short_basis": "Both answers direct Meridian to file immediately, seek expedited stay relief before the $2.4 million commitment, and challenge the threshold, supplier/contractor requirements, undisclosed model, response to comments, and immediate effectiveness on procedural grounds.", "answer_a_was": "Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_b_was": "DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS", "answer_a_display": "Qwen 3.8 27B", "answer_b_display": "DeepSeek V4-Flash-0731", "winner": "TIE", "verdict_code": "TIE", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-2/verdicts/q38__DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS__vs__Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL.json" }, "qwen38-qwen35": { "key": "qwen38-qwen35", "label": "Qwen 3.8 vs Qwen 3.5", "first": "qwen38", "second": "qwen35", "status": "tie", "result": "Functional tie", "short_result": "Tie", "basis": "Both answers direct Meridian to file immediately, seek an expedited stay before the $2.4 million commitment, and pursue vacatur or remand based on inadequate notice, the unnotified supplier/contractor requirements, the undisclosed model, inadequate comment response, and invalid good cause. Their differing characterization of monthly reporting does not change the material litigation path because both challenge that provision through the agency’s inadequate response and immediate-effectiveness defect.", "short_basis": "Both answers direct Meridian to file immediately, seek an expedited stay before the $2.4 million commitment, and pursue vacatur or remand based on inadequate notice, the unnotified supplier/contractor requirements, the undisclosed model, inadequate comment response, and invalid good cause.", "answer_a_was": "Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_b_was": "Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_a_display": "Qwen 3.5 27B", "answer_b_display": "Qwen 3.8 27B", "winner": "TIE", "verdict_code": "TIE", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-2/verdicts/q38__Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__vs__Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL.json" }, "deepseek-claude": { "key": "deepseek-claude", "label": "DeepSeek vs Claude", "first": "deepseek", "second": "claude", "status": "tie", "result": "Functional tie", "short_result": "Tie", "basis": "Both answers direct Meridian to file a petition promptly within 30 days, seek an immediate stay before the $2.4 million commitment, and assert the same material procedural defects concerning notice, the post-comment model, significant comments, and good cause. Both pursue stay, vacatur or remand, and reopened comment without relying on the rule’s policy merits, placing Meridian on the same materially safe litigation path.", "short_basis": "Both answers direct Meridian to file a petition promptly within 30 days, seek an immediate stay before the $2.4 million commitment, and assert the same material procedural defects concerning notice, the post-comment model, significant comments, and good cause.", "answer_a_was": "claude-opus-5", "answer_b_was": "DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS", "answer_a_display": "Claude Opus 5", "answer_b_display": "DeepSeek V4-Flash-0731", "winner": "TIE", "verdict_code": "TIE", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-2/verdicts/q38__DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS__vs__claude-opus-5.json" }, "deepseek-qwen35": { "key": "deepseek-qwen35", "label": "DeepSeek vs Qwen 3.5", "first": "deepseek", "second": "qwen35", "status": "tie", "result": "Functional tie", "short_result": "Tie", "basis": "Both answers direct Meridian to file promptly within the 30-day deadline, seek a stay before the 25-day contract deadline, challenge the threshold and supply-chain requirements, attack reliance on the undisclosed model, raise the inadequate comment response and defective good-cause finding, oppose harmless error, and seek vacatur or remand. Their disagreement over whether monthly reporting itself was a logical outgrowth changes claim emphasis but does not establish a different material outcome given the same requested relief and independent procedural grounds.", "short_basis": "Both answers direct Meridian to file promptly within the 30-day deadline, seek a stay before the 25-day contract deadline, challenge the threshold and supply-chain requirements, attack reliance on the undisclosed model, raise the inadequate comment response and defective good-cause finding, oppose harmless…", "answer_a_was": "Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_b_was": "DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS", "answer_a_display": "Qwen 3.5 27B", "answer_b_display": "DeepSeek V4-Flash-0731", "winner": "TIE", "verdict_code": "TIE", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-2/verdicts/q38__DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS__vs__Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL.json" }, "qwen35-claude": { "key": "qwen35-claude", "label": "Qwen 3.5 vs Claude", "first": "qwen35", "second": "claude", "status": "tie", "result": "Functional tie", "short_result": "Tie", "basis": "Both answers direct Meridian to file a timely procedural petition with an emergency stay request before the 25-day contract deadline, challenging the threshold change, supply-chain requirements, undisclosed model, unanswered instrumentation comment, and good-cause finding. Their differences do not demonstrably alter Meridian’s protection from imminent compliance costs or the materially available vacatur and remand remedies.", "short_basis": "Both answers direct Meridian to file a timely procedural petition with an emergency stay request before the 25-day contract deadline, challenging the threshold change, supply-chain requirements, undisclosed model, unanswered instrumentation comment, and good-cause finding.", "answer_a_was": "claude-opus-5", "answer_b_was": "Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_a_display": "Claude Opus 5", "answer_b_display": "Qwen 3.5 27B", "winner": "TIE", "verdict_code": "TIE", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-2/verdicts/q38__Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__vs__claude-opus-5.json" } }, "rejected_points": { "qwen38": 2, "deepseek": 0, "claude": 1, "qwen35": 8 }, "delivery_filter_matter": false }, { "qid": "q39", "number": 39, "series": "Series 2", "title": "The Copper Discharge Decree", "category": "Environmental law", "matter_page": "matters/q39/index.html", "question_file": "evidence/series-2/questions/q39.md", "key_file": "evidence/series-2/keys/q39.md", "answers": { "deepseek": "evidence/series-2/answers/DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS/DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS__q39_r1.md", "claude": "evidence/series-2/answers/claude-opus-5/claude-opus-5__q39_r1.md", "qwen35": "evidence/series-2/answers/Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL/Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__q39_r1.md", "qwen38": "evidence/series-2/answers/Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL/Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__q39_r1.md" }, "reasoning": { "deepseek": "evidence/series-2/answers/DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS/DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS__q39_r1.reasoning.md", "qwen35": "evidence/series-2/answers/Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL/Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__q39_r1.reasoning.md", "qwen38": "evidence/series-2/answers/Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL/Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__q39_r1.reasoning.md" }, "pairings": { "qwen38-claude": { "key": "qwen38-claude", "label": "Qwen 3.8 vs Claude", "first": "qwen38", "second": "claude", "status": "frontier", "result": "Claude win", "short_result": "Claude win", "basis": "Answer A grants Selwick a civil release for the disclosed pre-Effective-Date violations upon payment of the civil penalty, while Answer B conditions that release on full and timely performance of the entire Decree. Under Answer B, the settled claims therefore remain outstanding during performance and may never be released following an untimely obligation; Answer A gives Selwick the requested settlement finality after payment.", "short_basis": "Answer A grants Selwick a civil release for the disclosed pre-Effective-Date violations upon payment of the civil penalty, while Answer B conditions that release on full and timely performance of the entire Decree.", "answer_a_was": "claude-opus-5", "answer_b_was": "Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_a_display": "Claude Opus 5", "answer_b_display": "Qwen 3.8 27B", "winner": "claude-opus-5", "verdict_code": "A", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-2/verdicts/q39__Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__vs__claude-opus-5.json" }, "qwen38-deepseek": { "key": "qwen38-deepseek", "label": "Qwen 3.8 vs DeepSeek", "first": "qwen38", "second": "deepseek", "status": "tie", "result": "Functional tie", "short_result": "Tie", "basis": "Both answers place Selwick on the same material settlement path: a $472,400 penalty payable within 30 days, a Day-120 ion-exchange system, twelve months of monitoring and reporting, authorized stipulated penalties, limited force majeure, preserved enforcement rights, a civil release, and public-comment and court-approval conditions. The drafting differences do not establish a concrete, record-supported change in Selwick’s ultimate legal, financial, or operational outcome.", "short_basis": "Both answers place Selwick on the same material settlement path: a $472,400 penalty payable within 30 days, a Day-120 ion-exchange system, twelve months of monitoring and reporting, authorized stipulated penalties, limited force majeure, preserved enforcement rights, a civil release, and public-comment and…", "answer_a_was": "DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS", "answer_b_was": "Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_a_display": "DeepSeek V4-Flash-0731", "answer_b_display": "Qwen 3.8 27B", "winner": "TIE", "verdict_code": "TIE", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-2/verdicts/q39__DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS__vs__Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL.json" }, "qwen38-qwen35": { "key": "qwen38-qwen35", "label": "Qwen 3.8 vs Qwen 3.5", "first": "qwen38", "second": "qwen35", "status": "tie", "result": "Functional tie", "short_result": "Tie", "basis": "After ordinary verification, both readers follow the same material path: a $472,400 penalty, ion-exchange control operational by Day 120, twelve months of weekly sampling, exceedance controls, third-party verification, the authorized stipulated penalties, limited force majeure, and a release confined to disclosed pre-effective-date civil violations. The remaining drafting differences do not establish a concrete, record-supported change in Selwick’s ultimate legal, financial, or operational position.", "short_basis": "After ordinary verification, both readers follow the same material path: a $472,400 penalty, ion-exchange control operational by Day 120, twelve months of weekly sampling, exceedance controls, third-party verification, the authorized stipulated penalties, limited force majeure, and a release confined to…", "answer_a_was": "Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_b_was": "Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_a_display": "Qwen 3.8 27B", "answer_b_display": "Qwen 3.5 27B", "winner": "TIE", "verdict_code": "TIE", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-2/verdicts/q39__Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__vs__Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL.json" }, "deepseek-claude": { "key": "deepseek-claude", "label": "DeepSeek vs Claude", "first": "deepseek", "second": "claude", "status": "tie", "result": "Functional tie", "short_result": "Tie", "basis": "After ordinary verification rejects the unsupported expansions identified below, both drafts place Selwick on the same material path: a $472,400 penalty payable within 30 days, a Day-10 order and Day-120 ion-exchange system, twelve months of weekly sampling, exceedance controls, verification, the authorized stipulated penalties, and a limited release. The remaining differences do not establish a concrete, record-supported change in Selwick’s position.", "short_basis": "After ordinary verification rejects the unsupported expansions identified below, both drafts place Selwick on the same material path: a $472,400 penalty payable within 30 days, a Day-10 order and Day-120 ion-exchange system, twelve months of weekly sampling, exceedance controls, verification, the authorized…", "answer_a_was": "DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS", "answer_b_was": "claude-opus-5", "answer_a_display": "DeepSeek V4-Flash-0731", "answer_b_display": "Claude Opus 5", "winner": "TIE", "verdict_code": "TIE", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-2/verdicts/q39__DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS__vs__claude-opus-5.json" }, "deepseek-qwen35": { "key": "deepseek-qwen35", "label": "DeepSeek vs Qwen 3.5", "first": "deepseek", "second": "qwen35", "status": "local", "result": "DeepSeek win", "short_result": "DeepSeek win", "basis": "Answer A charges $16,000 on the third exceedance day in a rolling 60-day period, while the authorized schedule charges $8,000 for the first three days and increases to $16,000 only after three days. Accepting Answer A would therefore expose Selwick to an unauthorized additional $8,000 stipulated penalty on the third exceedance day.", "short_basis": "Answer A charges $16,000 on the third exceedance day in a rolling 60-day period, while the authorized schedule charges $8,000 for the first three days and increases to $16,000 only after three days.", "answer_a_was": "Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_b_was": "DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS", "answer_a_display": "Qwen 3.5 27B", "answer_b_display": "DeepSeek V4-Flash-0731", "winner": "DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS", "verdict_code": "B", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-2/verdicts/q39__DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS__vs__Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL.json" }, "qwen35-claude": { "key": "qwen35-claude", "label": "Qwen 3.5 vs Claude", "first": "qwen35", "second": "claude", "status": "tie", "result": "Functional tie", "short_result": "Tie", "basis": "Both answers place the parties on the same material path: a $472,400 penalty, ion-exchange operation by Day 120, interim monitoring and production controls, third-party verification, the authorized penalty schedule, and a limited release subject to public comment and court approval. Ordinary verification rejects the listed drafting deviations before execution, and no remaining difference produces a concrete, record-supported client consequence.", "short_basis": "Both answers place the parties on the same material path: a $472,400 penalty, ion-exchange operation by Day 120, interim monitoring and production controls, third-party verification, the authorized penalty schedule, and a limited release subject to public comment and court approval.", "answer_a_was": "Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_b_was": "claude-opus-5", "answer_a_display": "Qwen 3.5 27B", "answer_b_display": "Claude Opus 5", "winner": "TIE", "verdict_code": "TIE", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-2/verdicts/q39__Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__vs__claude-opus-5.json" } }, "rejected_points": { "qwen38": 2, "deepseek": 1, "claude": 4, "qwen35": 2 }, "delivery_filter_matter": false }, { "qid": "q40", "number": 40, "series": "Series 2", "title": "The Dry-Cleaner Parcel", "category": "Real estate and environment", "matter_page": "matters/q40/index.html", "question_file": "evidence/series-2/questions/q40.md", "key_file": "evidence/series-2/keys/q40.md", "answers": { "deepseek": "evidence/series-2/answers/DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS/DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS__q40_r1.md", "claude": "evidence/series-2/answers/claude-opus-5/claude-opus-5__q40_r1.md", "qwen35": "evidence/series-2/answers/Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL/Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__q40_r1.md", "qwen38": "evidence/series-2/answers/Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL/Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__q40_r1.md" }, "reasoning": { "deepseek": "evidence/series-2/answers/DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS/DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS__q40_r1.reasoning.md", "claude": "evidence/series-2/answers/claude-opus-5/claude-opus-5__q40_r1.reasoning.md", "qwen35": "evidence/series-2/answers/Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL/Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__q40_r1.reasoning.md", "qwen38": "evidence/series-2/answers/Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL/Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__q40_r1.reasoning.md" }, "pairings": { "qwen38-claude": { "key": "qwen38-claude", "label": "Qwen 3.8 vs Claude", "first": "qwen38", "second": "claude", "status": "tie", "result": "Functional tie", "short_result": "Tie", "basis": "Both answers direct Brindle to obtain Phase II results before closing, preserve innocent-purchaser protection, reject the $500,000 escrow and final-judgment condition on the present record, and require an escrow of $2,118,000 unless testing supports a different supplied branch. Both also recommend substantially equivalent contractual protections and restructuring while recognizing that current-owner liability remains.", "short_basis": "Both answers direct Brindle to obtain Phase II results before closing, preserve innocent-purchaser protection, reject the $500,000 escrow and final-judgment condition on the present record, and require an escrow of $2,118,000 unless testing supports a different supplied branch.", "answer_a_was": "Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_b_was": "claude-opus-5", "answer_a_display": "Qwen 3.8 27B", "answer_b_display": "Claude Opus 5", "winner": "TIE", "verdict_code": "TIE", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-2/verdicts/q40__Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__vs__claude-opus-5.json" }, "qwen38-deepseek": { "key": "qwen38-deepseek", "label": "Qwen 3.8 vs DeepSeek", "first": "qwen38", "second": "deepseek", "status": "tie", "result": "Functional tie", "short_result": "Tie", "basis": "Both answers direct Brindle to complete and review Phase II testing before closing, require the Rule 7 escrow of $2,118,000 or the applicable confirmed-branch amount, eliminate the final-judgment draw condition, strengthen environmental protections, and refuse to close if Harthill will not provide adequate security. Their differences do not establish a materially different client outcome on the supplied record.", "short_basis": "Both answers direct Brindle to complete and review Phase II testing before closing, require the Rule 7 escrow of $2,118,000 or the applicable confirmed-branch amount, eliminate the final-judgment draw condition, strengthen environmental protections, and refuse to close if Harthill will not provide adequate…", "answer_a_was": "Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_b_was": "DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS", "answer_a_display": "Qwen 3.8 27B", "answer_b_display": "DeepSeek V4-Flash-0731", "winner": "TIE", "verdict_code": "TIE", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-2/verdicts/q40__DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS__vs__Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL.json" }, "qwen38-qwen35": { "key": "qwen38-qwen35", "label": "Qwen 3.8 vs Qwen 3.5", "first": "qwen38", "second": "qwen35", "status": "tie", "result": "Functional tie", "short_result": "Tie", "basis": "Both answers direct Brindle not to close on the current terms, to complete Phase II before closing, and to condition any closing on lender approval, adequate security, and revised environmental provisions. Both calculate the current Rule 7 escrow as $2,118,000, reject the $500,000 amount and final-judgment draw condition, recognize direct owner and successor-liability exposure, and recommend restructuring without treating it as eliminating owner liability.", "short_basis": "Both answers direct Brindle not to close on the current terms, to complete Phase II before closing, and to condition any closing on lender approval, adequate security, and revised environmental provisions.", "answer_a_was": "Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_b_was": "Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_a_display": "Qwen 3.5 27B", "answer_b_display": "Qwen 3.8 27B", "winner": "TIE", "verdict_code": "TIE", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-2/verdicts/q40__Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__vs__Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL.json" }, "deepseek-claude": { "key": "deepseek-claude", "label": "DeepSeek vs Claude", "first": "deepseek", "second": "claude", "status": "tie", "result": "Functional tie", "short_result": "Tie", "basis": "Both answers direct Brindle to obtain and review Phase II results before closing, recognize direct owner and meaningful successor-liability exposure, calculate the current Rule 7 escrow at $2,118,000, reject the $500,000 escrow and final-judgment condition, and require materially equivalent contractual protections. After ordinary verification rejects Answer B’s unsupported additional tier and ancillary assertions, both readers remain on the same materially safe transaction path.", "short_basis": "Both answers direct Brindle to obtain and review Phase II results before closing, recognize direct owner and meaningful successor-liability exposure, calculate the current Rule 7 escrow at $2,118,000, reject the $500,000 escrow and final-judgment condition, and require materially equivalent contractual…", "answer_a_was": "DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS", "answer_b_was": "claude-opus-5", "answer_a_display": "DeepSeek V4-Flash-0731", "answer_b_display": "Claude Opus 5", "winner": "TIE", "verdict_code": "TIE", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-2/verdicts/q40__DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS__vs__claude-opus-5.json" }, "deepseek-qwen35": { "key": "deepseek-qwen35", "label": "DeepSeek vs Qwen 3.5", "first": "deepseek", "second": "qwen35", "status": "tie", "result": "Functional tie", "short_result": "Tie", "basis": "Both answers direct Brindle to complete Phase II before closing, reject the $500,000 escrow and final-judgment condition, require a current Rule 7 escrow of $2,118,000 with direct-payment and adequate-survival terms, and recognize that contractual structuring cannot eliminate current-owner liability. No demonstrated difference establishes that Brindle would close, negotiate, or bear contamination costs materially differently.", "short_basis": "Both answers direct Brindle to complete Phase II before closing, reject the $500,000 escrow and final-judgment condition, require a current Rule 7 escrow of $2,118,000 with direct-payment and adequate-survival terms, and recognize that contractual structuring cannot eliminate current-owner liability.", "answer_a_was": "DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS", "answer_b_was": "Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_a_display": "DeepSeek V4-Flash-0731", "answer_b_display": "Qwen 3.5 27B", "winner": "TIE", "verdict_code": "TIE", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-2/verdicts/q40__DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS__vs__Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL.json" }, "qwen35-claude": { "key": "qwen35-claude", "label": "Qwen 3.5 vs Claude", "first": "qwen35", "second": "claude", "status": "tie", "result": "Functional tie", "short_result": "Tie", "basis": "Both answers place Brindle on the same material path: obtain Phase II results before closing, preserve the innocent-purchaser defense, reject the $500,000 final-judgment escrow, and require the rule 7 amount of $2,118,000 with accessible, adequately surviving security. Their differences do not establish a record-supported change in Brindle’s legal, financial, or operational outcome.", "short_basis": "Both answers place Brindle on the same material path: obtain Phase II results before closing, preserve the innocent-purchaser defense, reject the $500,000 final-judgment escrow, and require the rule 7 amount of $2,118,000 with accessible, adequately surviving security.", "answer_a_was": "Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_b_was": "claude-opus-5", "answer_a_display": "Qwen 3.5 27B", "answer_b_display": "Claude Opus 5", "winner": "TIE", "verdict_code": "TIE", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-2/verdicts/q40__Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__vs__claude-opus-5.json" } }, "rejected_points": { "qwen38": 1, "deepseek": 1, "claude": 11, "qwen35": 10 }, "delivery_filter_matter": false }, { "qid": "q41", "number": 41, "series": "Series 2", "title": "The Tenant's Five-Day Fuse", "category": "Commercial leasing", "matter_page": "matters/q41/index.html", "question_file": "evidence/series-2/questions/q41.md", "key_file": "evidence/series-2/keys/q41.md", "answers": { "deepseek": "evidence/series-2/answers/DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS/DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS__q41_r1.md", "claude": "evidence/series-2/answers/claude-opus-5/claude-opus-5__q41_r1.md", "qwen35": "evidence/series-2/answers/Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL/Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__q41_r1.md", "qwen38": "evidence/series-2/answers/Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL/Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__q41_r1.md" }, "reasoning": { "deepseek": "evidence/series-2/answers/DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS/DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS__q41_r1.reasoning.md", "claude": "evidence/series-2/answers/claude-opus-5/claude-opus-5__q41_r1.reasoning.md", "qwen35": "evidence/series-2/answers/Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL/Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__q41_r1.reasoning.md", "qwen38": "evidence/series-2/answers/Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL/Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__q41_r1.reasoning.md" }, "pairings": { "qwen38-claude": { "key": "qwen38-claude", "label": "Qwen 3.8 vs Claude", "first": "qwen38", "second": "claude", "status": "tie", "result": "Functional tie", "short_result": "Tie", "basis": "Both answers direct Lantern Row to pay the full $160,000 by March 6 under a reservation preserving the March claim, cure insurance promptly, document the excused operating closure, reject February relief, and submit final March sales by April 10 for a $48,000 credit if the below-70% threshold is proven. Both also preserve possession and the guaranty cap by curing rather than withholding and by avoiding holdover after any valid termination.", "short_basis": "Both answers direct Lantern Row to pay the full $160,000 by March 6 under a reservation preserving the March claim, cure insurance promptly, document the excused operating closure, reject February relief, and submit final March sales by April 10 for a $48,000 credit if the below-70% threshold is proven.", "answer_a_was": "Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_b_was": "claude-opus-5", "answer_a_display": "Qwen 3.8 27B", "answer_b_display": "Claude Opus 5", "winner": "TIE", "verdict_code": "TIE", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-2/verdicts/q41__Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__vs__claude-opus-5.json" }, "qwen38-deepseek": { "key": "qwen38-deepseek", "label": "Qwen 3.8 vs DeepSeek", "first": "qwen38", "second": "deepseek", "status": "tie", "result": "Functional tie", "short_result": "Tie", "basis": "Both answers direct Lantern Row to pay $160,000 by March 6 under protest, cure and document the nonmonetary issues promptly, submit final March sales data by April 10, claim any proven $48,000 credit, and avoid holding over after valid termination. The readers therefore follow the same materially correct path preserving possession, the March offset claim, and the guaranty cap.", "short_basis": "Both answers direct Lantern Row to pay $160,000 by March 6 under protest, cure and document the nonmonetary issues promptly, submit final March sales data by April 10, claim any proven $48,000 credit, and avoid holding over after valid termination.", "answer_a_was": "DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS", "answer_b_was": "Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_a_display": "DeepSeek V4-Flash-0731", "answer_b_display": "Qwen 3.8 27B", "winner": "TIE", "verdict_code": "TIE", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-2/verdicts/q41__DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS__vs__Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL.json" }, "qwen38-qwen35": { "key": "qwen38-qwen35", "label": "Qwen 3.8 vs Qwen 3.5", "first": "qwen38", "second": "qwen35", "status": "tie", "result": "Functional tie", "short_result": "Tie", "basis": "Both answers direct Lantern Row to pay the full $160,000 by March 6, promptly cure and document the nonmonetary issues, reject February relief, await final March sales, submit the statement by April 10, and avoid post-termination holdover. Their differences do not alter that materially correct and safe course or the preservation of the lease, March credit claim, and guaranty cap.", "short_basis": "Both answers direct Lantern Row to pay the full $160,000 by March 6, promptly cure and document the nonmonetary issues, reject February relief, await final March sales, submit the statement by April 10, and avoid post-termination holdover.", "answer_a_was": "Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_b_was": "Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_a_display": "Qwen 3.8 27B", "answer_b_display": "Qwen 3.5 27B", "winner": "TIE", "verdict_code": "TIE", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-2/verdicts/q41__Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__vs__Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL.json" }, "deepseek-claude": { "key": "deepseek-claude", "label": "DeepSeek vs Claude", "first": "deepseek", "second": "claude", "status": "tie", "result": "Functional tie", "short_result": "Tie", "basis": "Both answers direct Lantern Row to pay $160,000 under protest by March 6, cure and document the nonmonetary issues by March 16, reject February relief, submit final March sales data by April 10, claim any proven $48,000 credit, and avoid possession after a valid termination. Their differences do not alter the materially safe path preserving the lease, offset claim, and guaranty cap.", "short_basis": "Both answers direct Lantern Row to pay $160,000 under protest by March 6, cure and document the nonmonetary issues by March 16, reject February relief, submit final March sales data by April 10, claim any proven $48,000 credit, and avoid possession after a valid termination.", "answer_a_was": "claude-opus-5", "answer_b_was": "DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS", "answer_a_display": "Claude Opus 5", "answer_b_display": "DeepSeek V4-Flash-0731", "winner": "TIE", "verdict_code": "TIE", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-2/verdicts/q41__DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS__vs__claude-opus-5.json" }, "deepseek-qwen35": { "key": "deepseek-qwen35", "label": "DeepSeek vs Qwen 3.5", "first": "deepseek", "second": "qwen35", "status": "tie", "result": "Functional tie", "short_result": "Tie", "basis": "Both readers would pay the full $160,000 under written protest by March 6, cure and document the nonmonetary issues by March 16, remain in possession only while the lease remains valid, and submit final March sales data by April 10 to claim any proven $48,000 credit. The differences do not establish any materially different client action or outcome.", "short_basis": "Both readers would pay the full $160,000 under written protest by March 6, cure and document the nonmonetary issues by March 16, remain in possession only while the lease remains valid, and submit final March sales data by April 10 to claim any proven $48,000 credit.", "answer_a_was": "Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_b_was": "DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS", "answer_a_display": "Qwen 3.5 27B", "answer_b_display": "DeepSeek V4-Flash-0731", "winner": "TIE", "verdict_code": "TIE", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-2/verdicts/q41__DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS__vs__Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL.json" }, "qwen35-claude": { "key": "qwen35-claude", "label": "Qwen 3.5 vs Claude", "first": "qwen35", "second": "claude", "status": "tie", "result": "Functional tie", "short_result": "Tie", "basis": "Both answers direct Lantern Row to pay the full $160,000 under protest by March 6, cure and document the nonmonetary matters by March 16, remain in possession, preserve the guaranty cap, and timely claim a $48,000 next-installment credit only if final March sales are below 70% of prior-year March sales. Their differences do not establish a different material action or outcome on the supplied record.", "short_basis": "Both answers direct Lantern Row to pay the full $160,000 under protest by March 6, cure and document the nonmonetary matters by March 16, remain in possession, preserve the guaranty cap, and timely claim a $48,000 next-installment credit only if final March sales are below 70% of prior-year March sales.", "answer_a_was": "Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_b_was": "claude-opus-5", "answer_a_display": "Qwen 3.5 27B", "answer_b_display": "Claude Opus 5", "winner": "TIE", "verdict_code": "TIE", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-2/verdicts/q41__Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__vs__claude-opus-5.json" } }, "rejected_points": { "qwen38": 2, "deepseek": 0, "claude": 9, "qwen35": 7 }, "delivery_filter_matter": false }, { "qid": "q42", "number": 42, "series": "Series 2", "title": "The Collector's Ledger", "category": "Consumer finance", "matter_page": "matters/q42/index.html", "question_file": "evidence/series-2/questions/q42.md", "key_file": "evidence/series-2/keys/q42.md", "answers": { "deepseek": "evidence/series-2/answers/DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS/DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS__q42_r1.md", "claude": "evidence/series-2/answers/claude-opus-5/claude-opus-5__q42_r1.md", "qwen35": "evidence/series-2/answers/Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL/Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__q42_r1.md", "qwen38": "evidence/series-2/answers/Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL/Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__q42_r1.md" }, "reasoning": { "deepseek": "evidence/series-2/answers/DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS/DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS__q42_r1.reasoning.md", "claude": "evidence/series-2/answers/claude-opus-5/claude-opus-5__q42_r1.reasoning.md", "qwen35": "evidence/series-2/answers/Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL/Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__q42_r1.reasoning.md", "qwen38": "evidence/series-2/answers/Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL/Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__q42_r1.reasoning.md" }, "pairings": { "qwen38-claude": { "key": "qwen38-claude", "label": "Qwen 3.8 vs Claude", "first": "qwen38", "second": "claude", "status": "frontier", "result": "Claude win", "short_result": "Claude win", "basis": "The January 18 voicemail was a call made after the cease-call request, so Rule 5 raises post-cease-call damages from $1,500 to the $2,000 cap. Answer B expressly directs counsel to plead and preserve that additional $500 theory; Answer A omits it and recommends a $15,200 counterclaim, leaving the additional recovery unclaimed.", "short_basis": "The January 18 voicemail was a call made after the cease-call request, so Rule 5 raises post-cease-call damages from $1,500 to the $2,000 cap. Answer B expressly directs counsel to plead and preserve that additional $500 theory; Answer A omits it and recommends a $15,200 counterclaim, leaving the additional…", "answer_a_was": "Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_b_was": "claude-opus-5", "answer_a_display": "Qwen 3.8 27B", "answer_b_display": "Claude Opus 5", "winner": "claude-opus-5", "verdict_code": "B", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-2/verdicts/q42__Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__vs__claude-opus-5.json" }, "qwen38-deepseek": { "key": "qwen38-deepseek", "label": "Qwen 3.8 vs DeepSeek", "first": "qwen38", "second": "deepseek", "status": "tie", "result": "Functional tie", "short_result": "Tie", "basis": "Both answers direct Ellis to contest ownership and the unauthorized $480, assert a $15,200 counterclaim, refuse payment, seek dismissal and affirmative recovery, and apply any proven debt only as a setoff. They therefore place Ellis on the same materially correct and safe litigation path.", "short_basis": "Both answers direct Ellis to contest ownership and the unauthorized $480, assert a $15,200 counterclaim, refuse payment, seek dismissal and affirmative recovery, and apply any proven debt only as a setoff. They therefore place Ellis on the same materially correct and safe litigation path.", "answer_a_was": "Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_b_was": "DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS", "answer_a_display": "Qwen 3.8 27B", "answer_b_display": "DeepSeek V4-Flash-0731", "winner": "TIE", "verdict_code": "TIE", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-2/verdicts/q42__DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS__vs__Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL.json" }, "qwen38-qwen35": { "key": "qwen38-qwen35", "label": "Qwen 3.8 vs Qwen 3.5", "first": "qwen38", "second": "qwen35", "status": "local", "result": "Qwen 3.8 win", "short_result": "Qwen 3.8 win", "basis": "Answer A incorrectly values Ellis’s net recovery at $11,520 if ownership is proven by deducting the unsupported $3,680 demand, despite recognizing that the $480 charge is unauthorized. Answer B limits any potentially proven debt to $3,200 and correctly calculates a $12,000 net recovery, preserving an additional $480 for Ellis.", "short_basis": "Answer A incorrectly values Ellis’s net recovery at $11,520 if ownership is proven by deducting the unsupported $3,680 demand, despite recognizing that the $480 charge is unauthorized.", "answer_a_was": "Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_b_was": "Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_a_display": "Qwen 3.5 27B", "answer_b_display": "Qwen 3.8 27B", "winner": "Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "verdict_code": "B", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-2/verdicts/q42__Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__vs__Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL.json" }, "deepseek-claude": { "key": "deepseek-claude", "label": "DeepSeek vs Claude", "first": "deepseek", "second": "claude", "status": "frontier", "result": "Claude win", "short_result": "Claude win", "basis": "Answer B uniquely directs counsel to plead the January 18 employer voicemail as an additional post-cease call, preserving another $500 under Rule 5. Because Rule 5 covers “each later call” without limiting the recipient, and Rule 7 makes overlapping damages cumulative, that call raises Rule 5 damages to the $2,000 cap and the potential counterclaim to $15,700.", "short_basis": "Answer B uniquely directs counsel to plead the January 18 employer voicemail as an additional post-cease call, preserving another $500 under Rule 5. Because Rule 5 covers “each later call” without limiting the recipient, and Rule 7 makes overlapping damages cumulative, that call raises Rule 5 damages to the…", "answer_a_was": "DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS", "answer_b_was": "claude-opus-5", "answer_a_display": "DeepSeek V4-Flash-0731", "answer_b_display": "Claude Opus 5", "winner": "claude-opus-5", "verdict_code": "B", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-2/verdicts/q42__DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS__vs__claude-opus-5.json" }, "deepseek-qwen35": { "key": "deepseek-qwen35", "label": "DeepSeek vs Qwen 3.5", "first": "deepseek", "second": "qwen35", "status": "local", "result": "DeepSeek win", "short_result": "DeepSeek win", "basis": "Answer A correctly limits any proven debt to $3,200 and therefore preserves a $12,000 net affirmative recovery. Answer B instead sets off the unsupported $3,680 demand, reducing Ellis’s stated recovery to $11,520 and conceding the unauthorized $480.", "short_basis": "Answer A correctly limits any proven debt to $3,200 and therefore preserves a $12,000 net affirmative recovery. Answer B instead sets off the unsupported $3,680 demand, reducing Ellis’s stated recovery to $11,520 and conceding the unauthorized $480.", "answer_a_was": "DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS", "answer_b_was": "Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_a_display": "DeepSeek V4-Flash-0731", "answer_b_display": "Qwen 3.5 27B", "winner": "DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS", "verdict_code": "A", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-2/verdicts/q42__DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS__vs__Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL.json" }, "qwen35-claude": { "key": "qwen35-claude", "label": "Qwen 3.5 vs Claude", "first": "qwen35", "second": "claude", "status": "frontier", "result": "Claude win", "short_result": "Claude win", "basis": "Answer A identifies and preserves an additional Rule 5 claim based on the January 18 employer voicemail, while Answer B limits the claim to three post-cease calls and $1,500. Because the voicemail was a later collection call, pleading it reaches the $2,000 cap and preserves an additional $500 for Ellis. Exact difference. Answer A flags the January 18 employer voicemail as a fourth post-cease call worth an additional $500; Answer B omits it from Rule 5 entirely. Different conduct. Answer A’s reader pleads the alternative four-call theory and seeks the $2,000 cap; Answer B’s reader pleads only three calls and seeks $1,500. Concrete consequence. Ellis preserves an additional $500 statutory recovery under Answer A and forfeits it under Answer B. Record support. The cease-call request was delivered January 13, the employer voicemail occurred January 18, and Rule 5 assigns $500 to each later call up to $2,000. Material magnitude. The difference changes Ellis’s affirmative monetary claim by $500. Likelihood. A rational advocate would plead the expressly supported fourth call now because doing so reaches the statutory cap without requiring additional facts. No safe neutralization by ordinary verification. Correcting Answer B requires revising its confidently stated call count and damages value by incorporating an act it assigned only to Rule 6.", "short_basis": "Answer A identifies and preserves an additional Rule 5 claim based on the January 18 employer voicemail, while Answer B limits the claim to three post-cease calls and $1,500. Because the voicemail was a later collection call, pleading it reaches the $2,000 cap and preserves an additional $500 for Ellis.", "answer_a_was": "claude-opus-5", "answer_b_was": "Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_a_display": "Claude Opus 5", "answer_b_display": "Qwen 3.5 27B", "winner": "claude-opus-5", "verdict_code": "A", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-2/verdicts/q42__Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__vs__claude-opus-5.json" } }, "rejected_points": { "qwen38": 2, "deepseek": 2, "claude": 4, "qwen35": 7 }, "delivery_filter_matter": false }, { "qid": "q43", "number": 43, "series": "Series 2", "title": "The Furnace and the March Rent", "category": "Landlord and tenant", "matter_page": "matters/q43/index.html", "question_file": "evidence/series-2/questions/q43.md", "key_file": "evidence/series-2/keys/q43.md", "answers": { "deepseek": "evidence/series-2/answers/DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS/DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS__q43_r1.md", "claude": "evidence/series-2/answers/claude-opus-5/claude-opus-5__q43_r1.md", "qwen35": "evidence/series-2/answers/Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL/Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__q43_r1.md", "qwen38": "evidence/series-2/answers/Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL/Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__q43_r1.md" }, "reasoning": { "deepseek": "evidence/series-2/answers/DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS/DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS__q43_r1.reasoning.md", "claude": "evidence/series-2/answers/claude-opus-5/claude-opus-5__q43_r1.reasoning.md", "qwen35": "evidence/series-2/answers/Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL/Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__q43_r1.reasoning.md", "qwen38": "evidence/series-2/answers/Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL/Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__q43_r1.reasoning.md" }, "pairings": { "qwen38-claude": { "key": "qwen38-claude", "label": "Qwen 3.8 vs Claude", "first": "qwen38", "second": "claude", "status": "tie", "result": "Functional tie", "short_result": "Tie", "basis": "Both readers would authorize and pay for the licensed $1,400 repair today, then timely pay $250 with the invoice, proof of payment, and supporting records. Both would preserve but not deduct the $260 hotel claim, avoid total withholding or immediate termination, and retain evidence for any retaliation dispute.", "short_basis": "Both readers would authorize and pay for the licensed $1,400 repair today, then timely pay $250 with the invoice, proof of payment, and supporting records. Both would preserve but not deduct the $260 hotel claim, avoid total withholding or immediate termination, and retain evidence for any retaliation…", "answer_a_was": "Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_b_was": "claude-opus-5", "answer_a_display": "Qwen 3.8 27B", "answer_b_display": "Claude Opus 5", "winner": "TIE", "verdict_code": "TIE", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-2/verdicts/q43__Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__vs__claude-opus-5.json" }, "qwen38-deepseek": { "key": "qwen38-deepseek", "label": "Qwen 3.8 vs DeepSeek", "first": "qwen38", "second": "deepseek", "status": "tie", "result": "Functional tie", "short_result": "Tie", "basis": "Both answers direct Sora to authorize the licensed repair today, pay the contractor, and tender $250 on Friday with the invoice, payment proof, and supporting records. Both correctly advise against deducting the hotel expense, withholding all rent, or immediately terminating, leaving Sora on the same materially safe legal and financial path.", "short_basis": "Both answers direct Sora to authorize the licensed repair today, pay the contractor, and tender $250 on Friday with the invoice, payment proof, and supporting records. Both correctly advise against deducting the hotel expense, withholding all rent, or immediately terminating, leaving Sora on the same…", "answer_a_was": "DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS", "answer_b_was": "Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_a_display": "DeepSeek V4-Flash-0731", "answer_b_display": "Qwen 3.8 27B", "winner": "TIE", "verdict_code": "TIE", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-2/verdicts/q43__DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS__vs__Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL.json" }, "qwen38-qwen35": { "key": "qwen38-qwen35", "label": "Qwen 3.8 vs Qwen 3.5", "first": "qwen38", "second": "qwen35", "status": "tie", "result": "Functional tie", "short_result": "Tie", "basis": "Both answers direct Sora to authorize the licensed $1,400 repair today, preserve the evidence, pay exactly $250 on Friday with the required invoice and payment proof, pursue the $260 hotel expense separately, and neither withhold all rent nor terminate immediately. Their differences do not alter that materially correct and safe course.", "short_basis": "Both answers direct Sora to authorize the licensed $1,400 repair today, preserve the evidence, pay exactly $250 on Friday with the required invoice and payment proof, pursue the $260 hotel expense separately, and neither withhold all rent nor terminate immediately.", "answer_a_was": "Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_b_was": "Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_a_display": "Qwen 3.8 27B", "answer_b_display": "Qwen 3.5 27B", "winner": "TIE", "verdict_code": "TIE", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-2/verdicts/q43__Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__vs__Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL.json" }, "deepseek-claude": { "key": "deepseek-claude", "label": "DeepSeek vs Claude", "first": "deepseek", "second": "claude", "status": "tie", "result": "Functional tie", "short_result": "Tie", "basis": "Both answers direct Sora to authorize the licensed $1,400 repair today, pay the contractor, and timely pay the remaining $250 rent with the required invoice and proof of payment. Both prohibit deducting the $260 hotel expense without agreement or judgment, withholding all rent, or immediately terminating, while preserving the hotel and retaliation claims.", "short_basis": "Both answers direct Sora to authorize the licensed $1,400 repair today, pay the contractor, and timely pay the remaining $250 rent with the required invoice and proof of payment.", "answer_a_was": "DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS", "answer_b_was": "claude-opus-5", "answer_a_display": "DeepSeek V4-Flash-0731", "answer_b_display": "Claude Opus 5", "winner": "TIE", "verdict_code": "TIE", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-2/verdicts/q43__DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS__vs__claude-opus-5.json" }, "deepseek-qwen35": { "key": "deepseek-qwen35", "label": "DeepSeek vs Qwen 3.5", "first": "deepseek", "second": "qwen35", "status": "tie", "result": "Functional tie", "short_result": "Tie", "basis": "Both answers direct Sora to authorize the licensed $1,400 repair today, preserve evidence, pay exactly $250 on Friday with the required invoice, payment proof, and rent statement, pursue the $260 hotel expense separately, and neither withhold all rent nor terminate. Both therefore place her on the same materially correct and safe path.", "short_basis": "Both answers direct Sora to authorize the licensed $1,400 repair today, preserve evidence, pay exactly $250 on Friday with the required invoice, payment proof, and rent statement, pursue the $260 hotel expense separately, and neither withhold all rent nor terminate.", "answer_a_was": "Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_b_was": "DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS", "answer_a_display": "Qwen 3.5 27B", "answer_b_display": "DeepSeek V4-Flash-0731", "winner": "TIE", "verdict_code": "TIE", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-2/verdicts/q43__DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS__vs__Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL.json" }, "qwen35-claude": { "key": "qwen35-claude", "label": "Qwen 3.5 vs Claude", "first": "qwen35", "second": "claude", "status": "tie", "result": "Functional tie", "short_result": "Tie", "basis": "Both answers direct Sora to authorize the licensed $1,400 repair today, pay the contractor, deduct $1,400, and timely pay the remaining $250 with the invoice and proof of payment. Both also direct her not to deduct the $260 hotel expense, withhold all rent, or terminate immediately, while preserving evidence and pursuing the hotel claim separately.", "short_basis": "Both answers direct Sora to authorize the licensed $1,400 repair today, pay the contractor, deduct $1,400, and timely pay the remaining $250 with the invoice and proof of payment.", "answer_a_was": "claude-opus-5", "answer_b_was": "Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_a_display": "Claude Opus 5", "answer_b_display": "Qwen 3.5 27B", "winner": "TIE", "verdict_code": "TIE", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-2/verdicts/q43__Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__vs__claude-opus-5.json" } }, "rejected_points": { "qwen38": 3, "deepseek": 0, "claude": 2, "qwen35": 3 }, "delivery_filter_matter": false }, { "qid": "q44", "number": 44, "series": "Series 2", "title": "What Supervisors May Say", "category": "Labor law", "matter_page": "matters/q44/index.html", "question_file": "evidence/series-2/questions/q44.md", "key_file": "evidence/series-2/keys/q44.md", "answers": { "deepseek": "evidence/series-2/answers/DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS/DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS__q44_r1.md", "claude": "evidence/series-2/answers/claude-opus-5/claude-opus-5__q44_r1.md", "qwen35": "evidence/series-2/answers/Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL/Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__q44_r1.md", "qwen38": "evidence/series-2/answers/Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL/Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__q44_r1.md" }, "reasoning": { "deepseek": "evidence/series-2/answers/DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS/DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS__q44_r1.reasoning.md", "claude": "evidence/series-2/answers/claude-opus-5/claude-opus-5__q44_r1.reasoning.md", "qwen35": "evidence/series-2/answers/Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL/Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__q44_r1.reasoning.md", "qwen38": "evidence/series-2/answers/Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL/Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__q44_r1.reasoning.md" }, "pairings": { "qwen38-claude": { "key": "qwen38-claude", "label": "Qwen 3.8 vs Claude", "first": "qwen38", "second": "claude", "status": "frontier", "result": "Claude win", "short_result": "Claude win", "basis": "Answer B instructs supervisors to say bargaining begins from a “current agreement” or “current contract,” although these employees are not presently represented and no contract exists. Answer A correctly substitutes current pay, benefits, and working conditions, preventing Halcyon from delivering a materially inaccurate bargaining statement to 240 employees.", "short_basis": "Answer B instructs supervisors to say bargaining begins from a “current agreement” or “current contract,” although these employees are not presently represented and no contract exists.", "answer_a_was": "claude-opus-5", "answer_b_was": "Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_a_display": "Claude Opus 5", "answer_b_display": "Qwen 3.8 27B", "winner": "claude-opus-5", "verdict_code": "A", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-2/verdicts/q44__Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__vs__claude-opus-5.json" }, "qwen38-deepseek": { "key": "qwen38-deepseek", "label": "Qwen 3.8 vs DeepSeek", "first": "qwen38", "second": "deepseek", "status": "tie", "result": "Functional tie", "short_result": "Tie", "basis": "After ordinary verification, both answers place supervisors on the same materially lawful path: express Halcyon’s preference without coercion, describe bargaining and economic issues with uncertainty, continue only the documented preplanned increase, prohibit interrogation, surveillance, promises, and selective enforcement, and preserve and escalate complaints. No demonstrated difference would cause a competent professional to take materially different action or alter Halcyon’s legal or operational position.", "short_basis": "After ordinary verification, both answers place supervisors on the same materially lawful path: express Halcyon’s preference without coercion, describe bargaining and economic issues with uncertainty, continue only the documented preplanned increase, prohibit interrogation, surveillance, promises, and…", "answer_a_was": "DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS", "answer_b_was": "Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_a_display": "DeepSeek V4-Flash-0731", "answer_b_display": "Qwen 3.8 27B", "winner": "TIE", "verdict_code": "TIE", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-2/verdicts/q44__DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS__vs__Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL.json" }, "qwen38-qwen35": { "key": "qwen38-qwen35", "label": "Qwen 3.8 vs Qwen 3.5", "first": "qwen38", "second": "qwen35", "status": "tie", "result": "Functional tie", "short_result": "Tie", "basis": "After ordinary verification removes unsupported statements, both readers follow the same materially safe path: communicate Halcyon’s preference without coercion, describe bargaining and strikes with uncertainty, implement only the documented preplanned increase, and prohibit interrogation, surveillance, selective enforcement, retaliation, and misuse of voluntary comments. Both also preserve and escalate coercion or retaliation complaints without investigating employees’ union views.", "short_basis": "After ordinary verification removes unsupported statements, both readers follow the same materially safe path: communicate Halcyon’s preference without coercion, describe bargaining and strikes with uncertainty, implement only the documented preplanned increase, and prohibit interrogation, surveillance…", "answer_a_was": "Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_b_was": "Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_a_display": "Qwen 3.8 27B", "answer_b_display": "Qwen 3.5 27B", "winner": "TIE", "verdict_code": "TIE", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-2/verdicts/q44__Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__vs__Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL.json" }, "deepseek-claude": { "key": "deepseek-claude", "label": "DeepSeek vs Claude", "first": "deepseek", "second": "claude", "status": "tie", "result": "Functional tie", "short_result": "Tie", "basis": "Both answers direct supervisors to avoid threats, interrogation, promises, surveillance, and selective enforcement; accurately discuss bargaining, dues, strikes, and the preplanned increase; respect employee choice; and preserve and escalate complaints. After ordinary verification rejects Answer B’s unsupported claims of an existing no-closure decision and counsel clearance, both readers reach the same materially safe course.", "short_basis": "Both answers direct supervisors to avoid threats, interrogation, promises, surveillance, and selective enforcement; accurately discuss bargaining, dues, strikes, and the preplanned increase; respect employee choice; and preserve and escalate complaints.", "answer_a_was": "DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS", "answer_b_was": "claude-opus-5", "answer_a_display": "DeepSeek V4-Flash-0731", "answer_b_display": "Claude Opus 5", "winner": "TIE", "verdict_code": "TIE", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-2/verdicts/q44__DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS__vs__claude-opus-5.json" }, "deepseek-qwen35": { "key": "deepseek-qwen35", "label": "DeepSeek vs Qwen 3.5", "first": "deepseek", "second": "qwen35", "status": "tie", "result": "Functional tie", "short_result": "Tie", "basis": "Both answers direct supervisors to communicate Halcyon’s noncoercive preference and bargaining uncertainties, implement the independently approved increase, avoid threats, interrogation, promises, surveillance, and selective enforcement, and preserve and escalate complaints. After ordinary verification rejects Answer B’s unsupported factual assertions, both readers remain on the same materially correct and safe path.", "short_basis": "Both answers direct supervisors to communicate Halcyon’s noncoercive preference and bargaining uncertainties, implement the independently approved increase, avoid threats, interrogation, promises, surveillance, and selective enforcement, and preserve and escalate complaints.", "answer_a_was": "DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS", "answer_b_was": "Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_a_display": "DeepSeek V4-Flash-0731", "answer_b_display": "Qwen 3.5 27B", "winner": "TIE", "verdict_code": "TIE", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-2/verdicts/q44__DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS__vs__Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL.json" }, "qwen35-claude": { "key": "qwen35-claude", "label": "Qwen 3.5 vs Claude", "first": "qwen35", "second": "claude", "status": "tie", "result": "Functional tie", "short_result": "Tie", "basis": "Both answers direct supervisors to reject the closure threat, card-signing inquiry, conditional raise, surveillance, and selective cafeteria restriction, while using lawful language on bargaining, dues, strikes, the preplanned increase, employee choice, and nonretaliation. Both also permit only voluntary comments without probing or adverse reporting and require complaints to be preserved and escalated without investigating union views, leaving competent supervisors on the same materially safe path.", "short_basis": "Both answers direct supervisors to reject the closure threat, card-signing inquiry, conditional raise, surveillance, and selective cafeteria restriction, while using lawful language on bargaining, dues, strikes, the preplanned increase, employee choice, and nonretaliation.", "answer_a_was": "claude-opus-5", "answer_b_was": "Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_a_display": "Claude Opus 5", "answer_b_display": "Qwen 3.5 27B", "winner": "TIE", "verdict_code": "TIE", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-2/verdicts/q44__Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__vs__claude-opus-5.json" } }, "rejected_points": { "qwen38": 5, "deepseek": 1, "claude": 5, "qwen35": 7 }, "delivery_filter_matter": false }, { "qid": "q45", "number": 45, "series": "Series 2", "title": "The Strike After the Schedule Cut", "category": "Labor law", "matter_page": "matters/q45/index.html", "question_file": "evidence/series-2/questions/q45.md", "key_file": "evidence/series-2/keys/q45.md", "answers": { "deepseek": "evidence/series-2/answers/DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS/DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS__q45_r1.md", "claude": "evidence/series-2/answers/claude-opus-5/claude-opus-5__q45_r1.md", "qwen35": "evidence/series-2/answers/Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL/Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__q45_r1.md", "qwen38": "evidence/series-2/answers/Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL/Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__q45_r1.md" }, "reasoning": { "deepseek": "evidence/series-2/answers/DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS/DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS__q45_r1.reasoning.md", "claude": "evidence/series-2/answers/claude-opus-5/claude-opus-5__q45_r1.reasoning.md", "qwen35": "evidence/series-2/answers/Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL/Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__q45_r1.reasoning.md", "qwen38": "evidence/series-2/answers/Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL/Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__q45_r1.reasoning.md" }, "pairings": { "qwen38-claude": { "key": "qwen38-claude", "label": "Qwen 3.8 vs Claude", "first": "qwen38", "second": "claude", "status": "tie", "result": "Functional tie", "short_result": "Tie", "basis": "Both answers direct Ironvale to treat the differential cut as unlawful, classify the mixed-motive strike as an unfair-practice strike, immediately reinstate nonmisconduct strikers by displacing replacements, address back pay from June 25 subject to mitigation, investigate misconduct individually, restore the differential, and resume bargaining. Their unsupported estimates and ancillary remedial suggestions do not alter that shared materially correct and safe path.", "short_basis": "Both answers direct Ironvale to treat the differential cut as unlawful, classify the mixed-motive strike as an unfair-practice strike, immediately reinstate nonmisconduct strikers by displacing replacements, address back pay from June 25 subject to mitigation, investigate misconduct individually, restore…", "answer_a_was": "Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_b_was": "claude-opus-5", "answer_a_display": "Qwen 3.8 27B", "answer_b_display": "Claude Opus 5", "winner": "TIE", "verdict_code": "TIE", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-2/verdicts/q45__Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__vs__claude-opus-5.json" }, "qwen38-deepseek": { "key": "qwen38-deepseek", "label": "Qwen 3.8 vs DeepSeek", "first": "qwen38", "second": "deepseek", "status": "tie", "result": "Functional tie", "short_result": "Tie", "basis": "Both answers direct Ironvale to treat the mixed-motive strike as an unfair-practice strike, restore the differential, immediately reinstate nonmisconduct strikers by displacing replacements, pay back pay from June 25 subject to mitigation, assess misconduct individually, and resume bargaining. Both therefore put Ironvale on the same materially correct and safe operational path.", "short_basis": "Both answers direct Ironvale to treat the mixed-motive strike as an unfair-practice strike, restore the differential, immediately reinstate nonmisconduct strikers by displacing replacements, pay back pay from June 25 subject to mitigation, assess misconduct individually, and resume bargaining.", "answer_a_was": "Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_b_was": "DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS", "answer_a_display": "Qwen 3.8 27B", "answer_b_display": "DeepSeek V4-Flash-0731", "winner": "TIE", "verdict_code": "TIE", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-2/verdicts/q45__DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS__vs__Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL.json" }, "qwen38-qwen35": { "key": "qwen38-qwen35", "label": "Qwen 3.8 vs Qwen 3.5", "first": "qwen38", "second": "qwen35", "status": "local", "result": "Qwen 3.8 win", "short_result": "Qwen 3.8 win", "basis": "Answer A directs Ironvale to restore the unlawfully eliminated differential immediately before bargaining over future changes; Answer B instead recommends bargaining and potentially settling on a partial differential without first restoring the status quo. Following B could leave evening-shift employees suffering the continuing wage reduction while negotiations proceed, whereas A stops that concrete financial harm and the ongoing unilateral change. Exact difference. A says “restore the differential immediately”; B omits restoration and proposes bargaining with “potentially splitting the difference on the $1.75 cut.” Different conduct. A’s reader restores the differential now and then bargains; B’s reader may leave the cut in place while negotiating a settlement. Concrete consequence. Under B’s path, affected evening-shift employees continue losing the $1.75 differential until agreement or settlement; under A’s path, that loss stops immediately. Record support. The record establishes that Ironvale eliminated the differential without agreement, past practice, or emergency while bargaining continued, violating Rule 5. Material magnitude. Continued loss of a recurring wage differential concretely reduces employees’ compensation and prolongs Ironvale’s financial exposure. Likelihood. B expressly recommends negotiating over the differential and potentially splitting the cut, making continued withholding pending negotiations a rational implementation of its advice. No safe neutralization by ordinary verification. Supplying the omitted status-quo restoration requires deriving the lawful remedial action that B was asked to provide, not merely checking a cited fact or rule.", "short_basis": "Answer A directs Ironvale to restore the unlawfully eliminated differential immediately before bargaining over future changes; Answer B instead recommends bargaining and potentially settling on a partial differential without first restoring the status quo.", "answer_a_was": "Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_b_was": "Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_a_display": "Qwen 3.8 27B", "answer_b_display": "Qwen 3.5 27B", "winner": "Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "verdict_code": "A", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-2/verdicts/q45__Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__vs__Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL.json" }, "deepseek-claude": { "key": "deepseek-claude", "label": "DeepSeek vs Claude", "first": "deepseek", "second": "claude", "status": "tie", "result": "Functional tie", "short_result": "Tie", "basis": "Both answers direct Ironvale to treat the mixed-motive strike as an unfair-practice strike, restore the differential, immediately reinstate nonmisconduct strikers by displacing replacements, pay back pay from June 25, and assess misconduct individually. After ordinary verification rejects Answer B’s unsupported estimates and ancillary legal assertions, both readers remain on the same materially correct and safe path.", "short_basis": "Both answers direct Ironvale to treat the mixed-motive strike as an unfair-practice strike, restore the differential, immediately reinstate nonmisconduct strikers by displacing replacements, pay back pay from June 25, and assess misconduct individually.", "answer_a_was": "DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS", "answer_b_was": "claude-opus-5", "answer_a_display": "DeepSeek V4-Flash-0731", "answer_b_display": "Claude Opus 5", "winner": "TIE", "verdict_code": "TIE", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-2/verdicts/q45__DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS__vs__claude-opus-5.json" }, "deepseek-qwen35": { "key": "deepseek-qwen35", "label": "DeepSeek vs Qwen 3.5", "first": "deepseek", "second": "qwen35", "status": "local", "result": "DeepSeek win", "short_result": "DeepSeek win", "basis": "Answer A directs Ironvale to restore the $1.75 differential immediately and make affected employees whole before bargaining over future changes; Answer B recommends bargaining and potentially “splitting the difference” without directing restoration of the unlawfully altered status quo. Following Answer B therefore leaves Ironvale continuing the pay reduction and accumulating additional wage-remedy and unfair-practice exposure.", "short_basis": "Answer A directs Ironvale to restore the $1.75 differential immediately and make affected employees whole before bargaining over future changes; Answer B recommends bargaining and potentially “splitting the difference” without directing restoration of the unlawfully altered status quo.", "answer_a_was": "DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS", "answer_b_was": "Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_a_display": "DeepSeek V4-Flash-0731", "answer_b_display": "Qwen 3.5 27B", "winner": "DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS", "verdict_code": "A", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-2/verdicts/q45__DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS__vs__Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL.json" }, "qwen35-claude": { "key": "qwen35-claude", "label": "Qwen 3.5 vs Claude", "first": "qwen35", "second": "claude", "status": "tie", "result": "Functional tie", "short_result": "Tie", "basis": "Both answers direct Ironvale to treat the strike as an unfair-practice strike, immediately reinstate eligible strikers by displacing replacements, recognize back pay from June 25, deny reinstatement individually to the bottle thrower and threat-maker, reinstate the peaceful entrance-blocker, and resume bargaining. No difference demonstrated on this record changes that material course or produces a concrete, directionally better result for Ironvale.", "short_basis": "Both answers direct Ironvale to treat the strike as an unfair-practice strike, immediately reinstate eligible strikers by displacing replacements, recognize back pay from June 25, deny reinstatement individually to the bottle thrower and threat-maker, reinstate the peaceful entrance-blocker, and resume…", "answer_a_was": "claude-opus-5", "answer_b_was": "Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_a_display": "Claude Opus 5", "answer_b_display": "Qwen 3.5 27B", "winner": "TIE", "verdict_code": "TIE", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-2/verdicts/q45__Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__vs__claude-opus-5.json" } }, "rejected_points": { "qwen38": 1, "deepseek": 0, "claude": 11, "qwen35": 5 }, "delivery_filter_matter": false }, { "qid": "q46", "number": 46, "series": "Series 2", "title": "The Protest That Keeps the Stay", "category": "Government contracts", "matter_page": "matters/q46/index.html", "question_file": "evidence/series-2/questions/q46.md", "key_file": "evidence/series-2/keys/q46.md", "answers": { "deepseek": "evidence/series-2/answers/DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS/DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS__q46_r1.md", "claude": "evidence/series-2/answers/claude-opus-5/claude-opus-5__q46_r1.md", "qwen35": "evidence/series-2/answers/Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL/Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__q46_r1.md", "qwen38": "evidence/series-2/answers/Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL/Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__q46_r1.md" }, "reasoning": { "deepseek": "evidence/series-2/answers/DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS/DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS__q46_r1.reasoning.md", "claude": "evidence/series-2/answers/claude-opus-5/claude-opus-5__q46_r1.reasoning.md", "qwen35": "evidence/series-2/answers/Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL/Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__q46_r1.reasoning.md", "qwen38": "evidence/series-2/answers/Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL/Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__q46_r1.reasoning.md" }, "pairings": { "qwen38-claude": { "key": "qwen38-claude", "label": "Qwen 3.8 vs Claude", "first": "qwen38", "second": "claude", "status": "tie", "result": "Functional tie", "short_result": "Tie", "basis": "Both answers direct Silverline to omit the waived solicitation challenge, treat September 4 as the knowledge date, and ensure Board receipt by September 11 rather than pursue the agency-first sequence. Both preserve the automatic stay through a substantively adequate Board protest, request protected access and later supplementation, and identify discretionary Board or court relief as the fallback.", "short_basis": "Both answers direct Silverline to omit the waived solicitation challenge, treat September 4 as the knowledge date, and ensure Board receipt by September 11 rather than pursue the agency-first sequence.", "answer_a_was": "claude-opus-5", "answer_b_was": "Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_a_display": "Claude Opus 5", "answer_b_display": "Qwen 3.8 27B", "winner": "TIE", "verdict_code": "TIE", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-2/verdicts/q46__Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__vs__claude-opus-5.json" }, "qwen38-deepseek": { "key": "qwen38-deepseek", "label": "Qwen 3.8 vs DeepSeek", "first": "qwen38", "second": "deepseek", "status": "tie", "result": "Functional tie", "short_result": "Tie", "basis": "Both answers direct Silverline to omit the waived solicitation ground, file the complete Board protest by September 11, 2027, request protected-record access, supplement on newly learned facts, and avoid relying on an agency-first filing. Both therefore preserve the automatic stay and place Silverline on the same materially correct and safe procedural path.", "short_basis": "Both answers direct Silverline to omit the waived solicitation ground, file the complete Board protest by September 11, 2027, request protected-record access, supplement on newly learned facts, and avoid relying on an agency-first filing.", "answer_a_was": "DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS", "answer_b_was": "Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_a_display": "DeepSeek V4-Flash-0731", "answer_b_display": "Qwen 3.8 27B", "winner": "TIE", "verdict_code": "TIE", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-2/verdicts/q46__DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS__vs__Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL.json" }, "qwen38-qwen35": { "key": "qwen38-qwen35", "label": "Qwen 3.8 vs Qwen 3.5", "first": "qwen38", "second": "qwen35", "status": "tie", "result": "Functional tie", "short_result": "Tie", "basis": "Both answers direct Silverline to omit the waived solicitation challenge, treat September 4 as the knowledge date, file the substantive Board protest no later than September 14, and ensure Board receipt by Saturday, September 11 to preserve the automatic stay rather than waiting on an agency protest. After rejecting Answer B’s facial weekday error and unsupported supplementation cutoff, both readers follow the same materially correct and safe filing path.", "short_basis": "Both answers direct Silverline to omit the waived solicitation challenge, treat September 4 as the knowledge date, file the substantive Board protest no later than September 14, and ensure Board receipt by Saturday, September 11 to preserve the automatic stay rather than waiting on an agency protest.", "answer_a_was": "Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_b_was": "Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_a_display": "Qwen 3.8 27B", "answer_b_display": "Qwen 3.5 27B", "winner": "TIE", "verdict_code": "TIE", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-2/verdicts/q46__Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__vs__Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL.json" }, "deepseek-claude": { "key": "deepseek-claude", "label": "DeepSeek vs Claude", "first": "deepseek", "second": "claude", "status": "tie", "result": "Functional tie", "short_result": "Tie", "basis": "Both answers direct Silverline to omit the waived solicitation challenge, file the Board protest by September 11 rather than pursue the agency-first sequence, plead the three supported post-award grounds, request protected access, and supplement after the agency report. They therefore preserve the same automatic stay and place Silverline on the same materially safe procedural path.", "short_basis": "Both answers direct Silverline to omit the waived solicitation challenge, file the Board protest by September 11 rather than pursue the agency-first sequence, plead the three supported post-award grounds, request protected access, and supplement after the agency report.", "answer_a_was": "claude-opus-5", "answer_b_was": "DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS", "answer_a_display": "Claude Opus 5", "answer_b_display": "DeepSeek V4-Flash-0731", "winner": "TIE", "verdict_code": "TIE", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-2/verdicts/q46__DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS__vs__claude-opus-5.json" }, "deepseek-qwen35": { "key": "deepseek-qwen35", "label": "DeepSeek vs Qwen 3.5", "first": "deepseek", "second": "qwen35", "status": "tie", "result": "Functional tie", "short_result": "Tie", "basis": "Both answers direct Silverline to omit the waived ground, file the three known post-award grounds directly with the Board by September 11, request protected-record access, and supplement upon learning new facts. Each rejects the agency-first sequence and preserves the same automatic stay and procedural position.", "short_basis": "Both answers direct Silverline to omit the waived ground, file the three known post-award grounds directly with the Board by September 11, request protected-record access, and supplement upon learning new facts.", "answer_a_was": "DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS", "answer_b_was": "Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_a_display": "DeepSeek V4-Flash-0731", "answer_b_display": "Qwen 3.5 27B", "winner": "TIE", "verdict_code": "TIE", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-2/verdicts/q46__DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS__vs__Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL.json" }, "qwen35-claude": { "key": "qwen35-claude", "label": "Qwen 3.5 vs Claude", "first": "qwen35", "second": "claude", "status": "tie", "result": "Functional tie", "short_result": "Tie", "basis": "Both answers direct Silverline to omit the waived solicitation challenge, file the known post-award grounds directly with the Board by September 11, request protected access, and supplement newly discovered facts, thereby preserving the automatic stay. Their differences do not establish a different material outcome because unsupported additions are safely rejected and both readers reach the same filing sequence and deadlines.", "short_basis": "Both answers direct Silverline to omit the waived solicitation challenge, file the known post-award grounds directly with the Board by September 11, request protected access, and supplement newly discovered facts, thereby preserving the automatic stay.", "answer_a_was": "Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_b_was": "claude-opus-5", "answer_a_display": "Qwen 3.5 27B", "answer_b_display": "Claude Opus 5", "winner": "TIE", "verdict_code": "TIE", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-2/verdicts/q46__Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__vs__claude-opus-5.json" } }, "rejected_points": { "qwen38": 3, "deepseek": 0, "claude": 9, "qwen35": 5 }, "delivery_filter_matter": false }, { "qid": "q47", "number": 47, "series": "Series 2", "title": "The Tower Contract Termination Proposal", "category": "Government contracts", "matter_page": "matters/q47/index.html", "question_file": "evidence/series-2/questions/q47.md", "key_file": "evidence/series-2/keys/q47.md", "answers": { "deepseek": "evidence/series-2/answers/DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS/DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS__q47_r1.md", "claude": "evidence/series-2/answers/claude-opus-5/claude-opus-5__q47_r1.md", "qwen35": "evidence/series-2/answers/Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL/Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__q47_r1.md", "qwen38": "evidence/series-2/answers/Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL/Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__q47_r1.md" }, "reasoning": { "deepseek": "evidence/series-2/answers/DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS/DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS__q47_r1.reasoning.md", "claude": "evidence/series-2/answers/claude-opus-5/claude-opus-5__q47_r1.reasoning.md", "qwen35": "evidence/series-2/answers/Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL/Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__q47_r1.reasoning.md", "qwen38": "evidence/series-2/answers/Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL/Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__q47_r1.reasoning.md" }, "pairings": { "qwen38-claude": { "key": "qwen38-claude", "label": "Qwen 3.8 vs Claude", "first": "qwen38", "second": "claude", "status": "local", "result": "Qwen 3.8 win", "short_result": "Qwen 3.8 win", "basis": "Answer A preserves the unsupported $420,000 idle-labor claim for later resolution, while Answer B’s operative global-settlement term releases it despite earlier calling it reserved. Because both answers seek the same conversion, payment, and Government release, Answer B relinquishes a potentially valuable claim without any demonstrated additional consideration.", "short_basis": "Answer A preserves the unsupported $420,000 idle-labor claim for later resolution, while Answer B’s operative global-settlement term releases it despite earlier calling it reserved.", "answer_a_was": "Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_b_was": "claude-opus-5", "answer_a_display": "Qwen 3.8 27B", "answer_b_display": "Claude Opus 5", "winner": "Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "verdict_code": "A", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-2/verdicts/q47__Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__vs__claude-opus-5.json" }, "qwen38-deepseek": { "key": "qwen38-deepseek", "label": "Qwen 3.8 vs DeepSeek", "first": "qwen38", "second": "deepseek", "status": "tie", "result": "Functional tie", "short_result": "Tie", "basis": "Both answers place Quillstone on the same material path: acknowledge the 19 unexcused days, condition the access and weather positions on critical-path and concurrency proof, demand the necessary records, seek negotiated conversion and mutual release, claim the correctly calculated $1,796,000, and separately reserve the unsupported $420,000 item. Their drafting differences do not establish different professional conduct producing a concrete consequence for Quillstone.", "short_basis": "Both answers place Quillstone on the same material path: acknowledge the 19 unexcused days, condition the access and weather positions on critical-path and concurrency proof, demand the necessary records, seek negotiated conversion and mutual release, claim the correctly calculated $1,796,000, and…", "answer_a_was": "DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS", "answer_b_was": "Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_a_display": "DeepSeek V4-Flash-0731", "answer_b_display": "Qwen 3.8 27B", "winner": "TIE", "verdict_code": "TIE", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-2/verdicts/q47__DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS__vs__Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL.json" }, "qwen38-qwen35": { "key": "qwen38-qwen35", "label": "Qwen 3.8 vs Qwen 3.5", "first": "qwen38", "second": "qwen35", "status": "tie", "result": "Functional tie", "short_result": "Tie", "basis": "Both answers place the reader on the same material path: acknowledge the 19 unexcused days, condition the access and weather defenses on critical-path and concurrency evidence, seek the missing government records, propose conversion with resolution of excess reprocurement liability, calculate a $1,796,000 settlement, and reserve the unsupported $420,000 claim. After rejecting Answer B’s unsupported factual overstatements, neither answer produces a demonstrated difference in action or client outcome.", "short_basis": "Both answers place the reader on the same material path: acknowledge the 19 unexcused days, condition the access and weather defenses on critical-path and concurrency evidence, seek the missing government records, propose conversion with resolution of excess reprocurement liability, calculate a $1,796,000…", "answer_a_was": "Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_b_was": "Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_a_display": "Qwen 3.8 27B", "answer_b_display": "Qwen 3.5 27B", "winner": "TIE", "verdict_code": "TIE", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-2/verdicts/q47__Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__vs__Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL.json" }, "deepseek-claude": { "key": "deepseek-claude", "label": "DeepSeek vs Claude", "first": "deepseek", "second": "claude", "status": "local", "result": "DeepSeek win", "short_result": "DeepSeek win", "basis": "Answer A’s proposed global settlement expressly releases the reserved $420,000 idle-labor claim, including $29,400 potential profit, while Answer B preserves that claim for resolution after record production. Thus, acceptance of A’s terms waives a contingent claim worth up to $449,400 that remains available under B, contrary to the assignment’s instruction to reserve it separately.", "short_basis": "Answer A’s proposed global settlement expressly releases the reserved $420,000 idle-labor claim, including $29,400 potential profit, while Answer B preserves that claim for resolution after record production.", "answer_a_was": "claude-opus-5", "answer_b_was": "DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS", "answer_a_display": "Claude Opus 5", "answer_b_display": "DeepSeek V4-Flash-0731", "winner": "DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS", "verdict_code": "B", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-2/verdicts/q47__DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS__vs__claude-opus-5.json" }, "deepseek-qwen35": { "key": "deepseek-qwen35", "label": "DeepSeek vs Qwen 3.5", "first": "deepseek", "second": "qwen35", "status": "local", "result": "DeepSeek win", "short_result": "DeepSeek win", "basis": "Answer A affirmatively proposes resolving any validated $420,000 idle-labor claim “without further profit markup,” while Answer B preserves the supplied 7% profit entitlement. If that reserved performance cost is established, Answer A’s term reduces Quillstone’s recovery by $29,400.", "short_basis": "Answer A affirmatively proposes resolving any validated $420,000 idle-labor claim “without further profit markup,” while Answer B preserves the supplied 7% profit entitlement. If that reserved performance cost is established, Answer A’s term reduces Quillstone’s recovery by $29,400.", "answer_a_was": "Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_b_was": "DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS", "answer_a_display": "Qwen 3.5 27B", "answer_b_display": "DeepSeek V4-Flash-0731", "winner": "DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS", "verdict_code": "B", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-2/verdicts/q47__DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS__vs__Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL.json" }, "qwen35-claude": { "key": "qwen35-claude", "label": "Qwen 3.5 vs Claude", "first": "qwen35", "second": "claude", "status": "tie", "result": "Functional tie", "short_result": "Tie", "basis": "Both answers place Quillstone on the same material path: acknowledge the 19 unexcused days, seek records before asserting the access delay and idle-labor claim, claim the correctly calculated $1,796,000 convenience settlement, and negotiate conversion with resolution of reprocurement liability. Their drafting and reservation differences do not establish a record-supported change in Quillstone’s ultimate recovery or legal position.", "short_basis": "Both answers place Quillstone on the same material path: acknowledge the 19 unexcused days, seek records before asserting the access delay and idle-labor claim, claim the correctly calculated $1,796,000 convenience settlement, and negotiate conversion with resolution of reprocurement liability.", "answer_a_was": "claude-opus-5", "answer_b_was": "Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_a_display": "Claude Opus 5", "answer_b_display": "Qwen 3.5 27B", "winner": "TIE", "verdict_code": "TIE", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-2/verdicts/q47__Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__vs__claude-opus-5.json" } }, "rejected_points": { "qwen38": 1, "deepseek": 2, "claude": 11, "qwen35": 8 }, "delivery_filter_matter": false }, { "qid": "q48", "number": 48, "series": "Series 2", "title": "The Lien Two Days Before Closing", "category": "Real estate and liens", "matter_page": "matters/q48/index.html", "question_file": "evidence/series-2/questions/q48.md", "key_file": "evidence/series-2/keys/q48.md", "answers": { "deepseek": "evidence/series-2/answers/DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS/DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS__q48_r1.md", "claude": "evidence/series-2/answers/claude-opus-5/claude-opus-5__q48_r1.md", "qwen35": "evidence/series-2/answers/Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL/Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__q48_r1.md", "qwen38": "evidence/series-2/answers/Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL/Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__q48_r1.md" }, "reasoning": { "deepseek": "evidence/series-2/answers/DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS/DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS__q48_r1.reasoning.md", "claude": "evidence/series-2/answers/claude-opus-5/claude-opus-5__q48_r1.reasoning.md", "qwen35": "evidence/series-2/answers/Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL/Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__q48_r1.reasoning.md", "qwen38": "evidence/series-2/answers/Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL/Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__q48_r1.reasoning.md" }, "pairings": { "qwen38-claude": { "key": "qwen38-claude", "label": "Qwen 3.8 vs Claude", "first": "qwen38", "second": "claude", "status": "tie", "result": "Functional tie", "short_result": "Tie", "basis": "Both answers direct North Quay to give notice by Thursday, honor the five-business-day cure period, reject the unsupported $300,000 holdback and indemnity, and close only after a current payoff supports payment/release or a 125% insurer-approved escrow yielding exception-free policies and lender funding. Both preserve termination, further-extension, waiver, and specific-performance options without demonstrating a materially different outcome.", "short_basis": "Both answers direct North Quay to give notice by Thursday, honor the five-business-day cure period, reject the unsupported $300,000 holdback and indemnity, and close only after a current payoff supports payment/release or a 125% insurer-approved escrow yielding exception-free policies and lender funding.", "answer_a_was": "claude-opus-5", "answer_b_was": "Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_a_display": "Claude Opus 5", "answer_b_display": "Qwen 3.8 27B", "winner": "TIE", "verdict_code": "TIE", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-2/verdicts/q48__Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__vs__claude-opus-5.json" }, "qwen38-deepseek": { "key": "qwen38-deepseek", "label": "Qwen 3.8 vs DeepSeek", "first": "qwen38", "second": "deepseek", "status": "tie", "result": "Functional tie", "short_result": "Tie", "basis": "Both readers would timely notify the seller, invoke the cure extension, reject the unsupported $300,000 holdback, obtain a current creditor payoff, and close only after payment/release or an approved 125% escrow permits clean title policies and lender funding. If cure fails, both preserve the same extension, termination, deposit-recovery, waiver, and specific-performance options.", "short_basis": "Both readers would timely notify the seller, invoke the cure extension, reject the unsupported $300,000 holdback, obtain a current creditor payoff, and close only after payment/release or an approved 125% escrow permits clean title policies and lender funding.", "answer_a_was": "Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_b_was": "DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS", "answer_a_display": "Qwen 3.8 27B", "answer_b_display": "DeepSeek V4-Flash-0731", "winner": "TIE", "verdict_code": "TIE", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-2/verdicts/q48__DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS__vs__Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL.json" }, "qwen38-qwen35": { "key": "qwen38-qwen35", "label": "Qwen 3.8 vs Qwen 3.5", "first": "qwen38", "second": "qwen35", "status": "tie", "result": "Functional tie", "short_result": "Tie", "basis": "After ordinary verification, both readers timely notify the seller, honor the full five-business-day cure period, reject the unsupported $300,000 holdback, and close only with clean title policies and lender funding. Both ultimately preserve the same options to close after cure, grant a written extension, or terminate and recover the deposit after the cure period expires.", "short_basis": "After ordinary verification, both readers timely notify the seller, honor the full five-business-day cure period, reject the unsupported $300,000 holdback, and close only with clean title policies and lender funding.", "answer_a_was": "Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_b_was": "Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_a_display": "Qwen 3.5 27B", "answer_b_display": "Qwen 3.8 27B", "winner": "TIE", "verdict_code": "TIE", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-2/verdicts/q48__Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__vs__Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL.json" }, "deepseek-claude": { "key": "deepseek-claude", "label": "DeepSeek vs Claude", "first": "deepseek", "second": "claude", "status": "tie", "result": "Functional tie", "short_result": "Tie", "basis": "Both answers direct North Quay to give notice by Thursday, use the five-business-day cure period, obtain a current creditor payoff, reject the unsupported holdback and indemnity, and close only after an approved cure removes the lien exception and permits lender funding. Both preserve the same choices to close, extend in writing, or terminate after failed cure, so no demonstrated difference changes the client’s position.", "short_basis": "Both answers direct North Quay to give notice by Thursday, use the five-business-day cure period, obtain a current creditor payoff, reject the unsupported holdback and indemnity, and close only after an approved cure removes the lien exception and permits lender funding.", "answer_a_was": "claude-opus-5", "answer_b_was": "DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS", "answer_a_display": "Claude Opus 5", "answer_b_display": "DeepSeek V4-Flash-0731", "winner": "TIE", "verdict_code": "TIE", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-2/verdicts/q48__DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS__vs__claude-opus-5.json" }, "deepseek-qwen35": { "key": "deepseek-qwen35", "label": "DeepSeek vs Qwen 3.5", "first": "deepseek", "second": "qwen35", "status": "tie", "result": "Functional tie", "short_result": "Tie", "basis": "After ordinary verification, both readers timely object Wednesday, honor the full five-business-day cure period, require a current creditor payoff, reject the unsupported $300,000 holdback and indemnity, and close only upon release or a 125% insurer-approved escrow producing exception-free policies and lender funding. If cure fails by the valid extended date, both preserve termination, deposit recovery, further extension, waiver, and specific-performance positions.", "short_basis": "After ordinary verification, both readers timely object Wednesday, honor the full five-business-day cure period, require a current creditor payoff, reject the unsupported $300,000 holdback and indemnity, and close only upon release or a 125% insurer-approved escrow producing exception-free policies and…", "answer_a_was": "Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_b_was": "DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS", "answer_a_display": "Qwen 3.5 27B", "answer_b_display": "DeepSeek V4-Flash-0731", "winner": "TIE", "verdict_code": "TIE", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-2/verdicts/q48__DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS__vs__Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL.json" }, "qwen35-claude": { "key": "qwen35-claude", "label": "Qwen 3.5 vs Claude", "first": "qwen35", "second": "claude", "status": "tie", "result": "Functional tie", "short_result": "Tie", "basis": "After ordinary verification corrects Answer A’s facial calendar error and rejects its premature-termination language, both readers timely object, honor the cure period through Friday of the following week, demand a current written payoff, and close only upon release or an insurer-approved 125% escrow producing exception-free policies and lender funding. Both reject the unsupported $300,000 holdback and otherwise extend or terminate after the cure period on materially equivalent conditions.", "short_basis": "After ordinary verification corrects Answer A’s facial calendar error and rejects its premature-termination language, both readers timely object, honor the cure period through Friday of the following week, demand a current written payoff, and close only upon release or an insurer-approved 125% escrow…", "answer_a_was": "Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_b_was": "claude-opus-5", "answer_a_display": "Qwen 3.5 27B", "answer_b_display": "Claude Opus 5", "winner": "TIE", "verdict_code": "TIE", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-2/verdicts/q48__Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__vs__claude-opus-5.json" } }, "rejected_points": { "qwen38": 2, "deepseek": 3, "claude": 3, "qwen35": 8 }, "delivery_filter_matter": false }, { "qid": "q49", "number": 49, "series": "Series 2", "title": "The Deposit After the Missed Closing", "category": "Real estate contracts", "matter_page": "matters/q49/index.html", "question_file": "evidence/series-2/questions/q49.md", "key_file": "evidence/series-2/keys/q49.md", "answers": { "deepseek": "evidence/series-2/answers/DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS/DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS__q49_r1.md", "claude": "evidence/series-2/answers/claude-opus-5/claude-opus-5__q49_r1.md", "qwen35": "evidence/series-2/answers/Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL/Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__q49_r1.md", "qwen38": "evidence/series-2/answers/Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL/Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__q49_r1.md" }, "reasoning": { "deepseek": "evidence/series-2/answers/DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS/DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS__q49_r1.reasoning.md", "claude": "evidence/series-2/answers/claude-opus-5/claude-opus-5__q49_r1.reasoning.md", "qwen35": "evidence/series-2/answers/Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL/Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__q49_r1.reasoning.md", "qwen38": "evidence/series-2/answers/Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL/Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__q49_r1.reasoning.md" }, "pairings": { "qwen38-claude": { "key": "qwen38-claude", "label": "Qwen 3.8 vs Claude", "first": "qwen38", "second": "claude", "status": "tie", "result": "Functional tie", "short_result": "Tie", "basis": "Both answers direct Adrian to concede default, uphold the sole-remedy liquidated-damages clause, allow retention of the $90,000 deposit, tender the $18,000 shortfall, and reject all additional damages and fees. A competent reader following either answer reaches the same $108,000 total exposure and materially identical settlement and litigation position.", "short_basis": "Both answers direct Adrian to concede default, uphold the sole-remedy liquidated-damages clause, allow retention of the $90,000 deposit, tender the $18,000 shortfall, and reject all additional damages and fees.", "answer_a_was": "Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_b_was": "claude-opus-5", "answer_a_display": "Qwen 3.8 27B", "answer_b_display": "Claude Opus 5", "winner": "TIE", "verdict_code": "TIE", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-2/verdicts/q49__Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__vs__claude-opus-5.json" }, "qwen38-deepseek": { "key": "qwen38-deepseek", "label": "Qwen 3.8 vs DeepSeek", "first": "qwen38", "second": "deepseek", "status": "tie", "result": "Functional tie", "short_result": "Tie", "basis": "Both readers would concede Adrian’s default, enforce the sole-remedy clause, permit retention of the $90,000 deposit, tender the $18,000 shortfall, and reject actual damages, specific performance, and attorney fees. Answer B’s additional settlement and procedural suggestions do not establish a materially different, record-supported outcome.", "short_basis": "Both readers would concede Adrian’s default, enforce the sole-remedy clause, permit retention of the $90,000 deposit, tender the $18,000 shortfall, and reject actual damages, specific performance, and attorney fees.", "answer_a_was": "DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS", "answer_b_was": "Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_a_display": "DeepSeek V4-Flash-0731", "answer_b_display": "Qwen 3.8 27B", "winner": "TIE", "verdict_code": "TIE", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-2/verdicts/q49__DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS__vs__Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL.json" }, "qwen38-qwen35": { "key": "qwen38-qwen35", "label": "Qwen 3.8 vs Qwen 3.5", "first": "qwen38", "second": "qwen35", "status": "tie", "result": "Functional tie", "short_result": "Tie", "basis": "Both answers direct Adrian to concede default, accept total liquidated damages of $108,000, allow retention of the $90,000 deposit, and offer the $18,000 shortfall for a release. Both also direct him to oppose resale loss, carrying costs, specific performance, and attorney fees, producing the same materially correct settlement and litigation path.", "short_basis": "Both answers direct Adrian to concede default, accept total liquidated damages of $108,000, allow retention of the $90,000 deposit, and offer the $18,000 shortfall for a release.", "answer_a_was": "Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_b_was": "Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_a_display": "Qwen 3.8 27B", "answer_b_display": "Qwen 3.5 27B", "winner": "TIE", "verdict_code": "TIE", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-2/verdicts/q49__Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__vs__Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL.json" }, "deepseek-claude": { "key": "deepseek-claude", "label": "DeepSeek vs Claude", "first": "deepseek", "second": "claude", "status": "tie", "result": "Functional tie", "short_result": "Tie", "basis": "Both answers place Adrian on the same material path: concede default, enforce the sole-remedy clause, credit the $90,000 deposit, pay the $18,000 shortfall, and reject all additional damages, specific performance, and attorney fees. Their differences do not alter Adrian’s $108,000 total exposure or the materially correct settlement and litigation position.", "short_basis": "Both answers place Adrian on the same material path: concede default, enforce the sole-remedy clause, credit the $90,000 deposit, pay the $18,000 shortfall, and reject all additional damages, specific performance, and attorney fees.", "answer_a_was": "claude-opus-5", "answer_b_was": "DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS", "answer_a_display": "Claude Opus 5", "answer_b_display": "DeepSeek V4-Flash-0731", "winner": "TIE", "verdict_code": "TIE", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-2/verdicts/q49__DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS__vs__claude-opus-5.json" }, "deepseek-qwen35": { "key": "deepseek-qwen35", "label": "DeepSeek vs Qwen 3.5", "first": "deepseek", "second": "qwen35", "status": "tie", "result": "Functional tie", "short_result": "Tie", "basis": "Both answers place Adrian on the same materially correct path: concede default, affirm the enforceable sole-remedy clause, credit the $90,000 deposit toward $108,000, pay only the $18,000 shortfall, and reject actual damages, specific performance, and attorney fees. Their minor differences do not alter Adrian’s legal, financial, or litigation position.", "short_basis": "Both answers place Adrian on the same materially correct path: concede default, affirm the enforceable sole-remedy clause, credit the $90,000 deposit toward $108,000, pay only the $18,000 shortfall, and reject actual damages, specific performance, and attorney fees.", "answer_a_was": "DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS", "answer_b_was": "Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_a_display": "DeepSeek V4-Flash-0731", "answer_b_display": "Qwen 3.5 27B", "winner": "TIE", "verdict_code": "TIE", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-2/verdicts/q49__DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS__vs__Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL.json" }, "qwen35-claude": { "key": "qwen35-claude", "label": "Qwen 3.5 vs Claude", "first": "qwen35", "second": "claude", "status": "tie", "result": "Functional tie", "short_result": "Tie", "basis": "Both answers place Adrian on the same materially correct path: concede default, uphold the sole-remedy clause, permit retention of the $90,000 deposit, pay the $18,000 shortfall for total liability of $108,000, and reject all additional damages, specific performance, and attorney fees. Both recommend offering $18,000 for a release and defending against any excess demand.", "short_basis": "Both answers place Adrian on the same materially correct path: concede default, uphold the sole-remedy clause, permit retention of the $90,000 deposit, pay the $18,000 shortfall for total liability of $108,000, and reject all additional damages, specific performance, and attorney fees.", "answer_a_was": "claude-opus-5", "answer_b_was": "Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_a_display": "Claude Opus 5", "answer_b_display": "Qwen 3.5 27B", "winner": "TIE", "verdict_code": "TIE", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-2/verdicts/q49__Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__vs__claude-opus-5.json" } }, "rejected_points": { "qwen38": 5, "deepseek": 0, "claude": 8, "qwen35": 2 }, "delivery_filter_matter": false }, { "qid": "q50", "number": 50, "series": "Series 2", "title": "The Operating Agreement and the Side Letter", "category": "Corporate governance", "matter_page": "matters/q50/index.html", "question_file": "evidence/series-2/questions/q50.md", "key_file": "evidence/series-2/keys/q50.md", "answers": { "deepseek": "evidence/series-2/answers/DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS/DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS__q50_r1.md", "claude": "evidence/series-2/answers/claude-opus-5/claude-opus-5__q50_r1.md", "qwen35": "evidence/series-2/answers/Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL/Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__q50_r1.md", "qwen38": "evidence/series-2/answers/Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL/Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__q50_r1.md" }, "reasoning": { "deepseek": "evidence/series-2/answers/DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS/DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS__q50_r1.reasoning.md", "qwen35": "evidence/series-2/answers/Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL/Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__q50_r1.reasoning.md", "qwen38": "evidence/series-2/answers/Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL/Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__q50_r1.reasoning.md" }, "pairings": { "qwen38-claude": { "key": "qwen38-claude", "label": "Qwen 3.8 vs Claude", "first": "qwen38", "second": "claude", "status": "tie", "result": "Functional tie", "short_result": "Tie", "basis": "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.", "short_basis": "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.", "answer_a_was": "claude-opus-5", "answer_b_was": "Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_a_display": "Claude Opus 5", "answer_b_display": "Qwen 3.8 27B", "winner": "TIE", "verdict_code": "TIE", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-2/verdicts/q50__Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__vs__claude-opus-5.json" }, "qwen38-deepseek": { "key": "qwen38-deepseek", "label": "Qwen 3.8 vs DeepSeek", "first": "qwen38", "second": "deepseek", "status": "tie", "result": "Functional tie", "short_result": "Tie", "basis": "Both answers place the members on the same material path: the side letter is incorporated and controls only within its scope; Rhea should not be appointed unilaterally as proposed; and the bridge loan requires joint approval with no apparent-authority or waiver workaround. Both also require the contractual deadlock process, continued access to records and operations, and narrow declaratory or injunctive relief rather than dissolution.", "short_basis": "Both answers place the members on the same material path: the side letter is incorporated and controls only within its scope; Rhea should not be appointed unilaterally as proposed; and the bridge loan requires joint approval with no apparent-authority or waiver workaround.", "answer_a_was": "DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS", "answer_b_was": "Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_a_display": "DeepSeek V4-Flash-0731", "answer_b_display": "Qwen 3.8 27B", "winner": "TIE", "verdict_code": "TIE", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-2/verdicts/q50__DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS__vs__Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL.json" }, "qwen38-qwen35": { "key": "qwen38-qwen35", "label": "Qwen 3.8 vs Qwen 3.5", "first": "qwen38", "second": "qwen35", "status": "tie", "result": "Functional tie", "short_result": "Tie", "basis": "Both answers place the members on the same material path: the side letter is incorporated and controls within its limited term and scope; Rhea should not be appointed unilaterally in the proposed role; and Julian cannot execute the loan. Both also reject apparent authority and waiver, preserve access and operations, and require notice, an executive meeting, mediation, and narrow relief rather than dissolution.", "short_basis": "Both answers place the members on the same material path: the side letter is incorporated and controls within its limited term and scope; Rhea should not be appointed unilaterally in the proposed role; and Julian cannot execute the loan.", "answer_a_was": "Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_b_was": "Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_a_display": "Qwen 3.5 27B", "answer_b_display": "Qwen 3.8 27B", "winner": "TIE", "verdict_code": "TIE", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-2/verdicts/q50__Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__vs__Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL.json" }, "deepseek-claude": { "key": "deepseek-claude", "label": "DeepSeek vs Claude", "first": "deepseek", "second": "claude", "status": "tie", "result": "Functional tie", "short_result": "Tie", "basis": "Both readers conclude that the incorporated side letter controls only within its specific scope, that neither member should unilaterally make the proposed hybrid appointment, and that Julian cannot bind the company to the $1.2 million loan. Both preserve records and operations, reject waiver and apparent authority, maintain financing preparation without commitment, and direct the members through notice, the executive meeting, mediation, and—if necessary—a narrow declaration.", "short_basis": "Both readers conclude that the incorporated side letter controls only within its specific scope, that neither member should unilaterally make the proposed hybrid appointment, and that Julian cannot bind the company to the $1.2 million loan.", "answer_a_was": "claude-opus-5", "answer_b_was": "DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS", "answer_a_display": "Claude Opus 5", "answer_b_display": "DeepSeek V4-Flash-0731", "winner": "TIE", "verdict_code": "TIE", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-2/verdicts/q50__DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS__vs__claude-opus-5.json" }, "deepseek-qwen35": { "key": "deepseek-qwen35", "label": "DeepSeek vs Qwen 3.5", "first": "deepseek", "second": "qwen35", "status": "tie", "result": "Functional tie", "short_result": "Tie", "basis": "Both answers direct the members to the same material path: the side letter is incorporated; neither Rhea’s hybrid appointment nor the bridge loan should proceed unilaterally; the informed lender cannot rely on apparent authority; no waiver occurred; and records, operations, and financing options should be preserved while deadlock procedures and narrow relief are pursued. No demonstrated difference changes the company’s legal, financial, or operational position.", "short_basis": "Both answers direct the members to the same material path: the side letter is incorporated; neither Rhea’s hybrid appointment nor the bridge loan should proceed unilaterally; the informed lender cannot rely on apparent authority; no waiver occurred; and records, operations, and financing options should be…", "answer_a_was": "Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_b_was": "DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS", "answer_a_display": "Qwen 3.5 27B", "answer_b_display": "DeepSeek V4-Flash-0731", "winner": "TIE", "verdict_code": "TIE", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-2/verdicts/q50__DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS__vs__Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL.json" }, "qwen35-claude": { "key": "qwen35-claude", "label": "Qwen 3.5 vs Claude", "first": "qwen35", "second": "claude", "status": "tie", "result": "Functional tie", "short_result": "Tie", "basis": "Both answers place the members on the same material path: the side letter is incorporated, neither may make the present hybrid appointment unilaterally, Julian cannot execute the loan, prior conduct created no waiver, and the informed lender cannot rely on apparent authority. Both direct the members to preserve access and operations, avoid unauthorized commitments, and use notice, the five-business-day meeting, mediation, and narrow resolution rather than dissolution.", "short_basis": "Both answers place the members on the same material path: the side letter is incorporated, neither may make the present hybrid appointment unilaterally, Julian cannot execute the loan, prior conduct created no waiver, and the informed lender cannot rely on apparent authority.", "answer_a_was": "Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_b_was": "claude-opus-5", "answer_a_display": "Qwen 3.5 27B", "answer_b_display": "Claude Opus 5", "winner": "TIE", "verdict_code": "TIE", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-2/verdicts/q50__Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__vs__claude-opus-5.json" } }, "rejected_points": { "qwen38": 4, "deepseek": 2, "claude": 8, "qwen35": 10 }, "delivery_filter_matter": false }, { "qid": "q51", "number": 51, "series": "Series 2", "title": "The Partner the Firm Wants Out", "category": "Professional firms", "matter_page": "matters/q51/index.html", "question_file": "evidence/series-2/questions/q51.md", "key_file": "evidence/series-2/keys/q51.md", "answers": { "deepseek": "evidence/series-2/answers/DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS/DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS__q51_r1.md", "claude": "evidence/series-2/answers/claude-opus-5/claude-opus-5__q51_r1.md", "qwen35": "evidence/series-2/answers/Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL/Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__q51_r1.md", "qwen38": "evidence/series-2/answers/Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL/Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__q51_r1.md" }, "reasoning": { "deepseek": "evidence/series-2/answers/DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS/DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS__q51_r1.reasoning.md", "claude": "evidence/series-2/answers/claude-opus-5/claude-opus-5__q51_r1.reasoning.md", "qwen35": "evidence/series-2/answers/Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL/Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__q51_r1.reasoning.md", "qwen38": "evidence/series-2/answers/Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL/Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__q51_r1.reasoning.md" }, "pairings": { "qwen38-claude": { "key": "qwen38-claude", "label": "Qwen 3.8 vs Claude", "first": "qwen38", "second": "claude", "status": "tie", "result": "Functional tie", "short_result": "Tie", "basis": "Both answers direct Hallowmere to cancel the defective vote, preserve evidence, pay the vested allocation, remove materially interested partners, conduct an independent investigation, and use only proportionate interim restrictions while preserving Rafi’s response rights. Their differences do not establish a materially different, record-supported outcome for the firm.", "short_basis": "Both answers direct Hallowmere to cancel the defective vote, preserve evidence, pay the vested allocation, remove materially interested partners, conduct an independent investigation, and use only proportionate interim restrictions while preserving Rafi’s response rights.", "answer_a_was": "Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_b_was": "claude-opus-5", "answer_a_display": "Qwen 3.8 27B", "answer_b_display": "Claude Opus 5", "winner": "TIE", "verdict_code": "TIE", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-2/verdicts/q51__Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__vs__claude-opus-5.json" }, "qwen38-deepseek": { "key": "qwen38-deepseek", "label": "Qwen 3.8 vs DeepSeek", "first": "qwen38", "second": "deepseek", "status": "tie", "result": "Functional tie", "short_result": "Tie", "basis": "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.", "short_basis": "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.", "answer_a_was": "Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_b_was": "DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS", "answer_a_display": "Qwen 3.8 27B", "answer_b_display": "DeepSeek V4-Flash-0731", "winner": "TIE", "verdict_code": "TIE", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-2/verdicts/q51__DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS__vs__Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL.json" }, "qwen38-qwen35": { "key": "qwen38-qwen35", "label": "Qwen 3.8 vs Qwen 3.5", "first": "qwen38", "second": "qwen35", "status": "tie", "result": "Functional tie", "short_result": "Tie", "basis": "Both answers direct Hallowmere to halt the defective vote and blanket access cutoff, preserve evidence, honor the vested $920,000 allocation, investigate independently, exclude interested voters, and use only proportionate interim measures. Both permit a later fair separation or procedurally valid expulsion only if independent material misconduct is substantiated, so the client reaches the same materially safe path.", "short_basis": "Both answers direct Hallowmere to halt the defective vote and blanket access cutoff, preserve evidence, honor the vested $920,000 allocation, investigate independently, exclude interested voters, and use only proportionate interim measures.", "answer_a_was": "Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_b_was": "Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_a_display": "Qwen 3.8 27B", "answer_b_display": "Qwen 3.5 27B", "winner": "TIE", "verdict_code": "TIE", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-2/verdicts/q51__Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__vs__Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL.json" }, "deepseek-claude": { "key": "deepseek-claude", "label": "DeepSeek vs Claude", "first": "deepseek", "second": "claude", "status": "tie", "result": "Functional tie", "short_result": "Tie", "basis": "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.", "short_basis": "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.", "answer_a_was": "claude-opus-5", "answer_b_was": "DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS", "answer_a_display": "Claude Opus 5", "answer_b_display": "DeepSeek V4-Flash-0731", "winner": "TIE", "verdict_code": "TIE", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-2/verdicts/q51__DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS__vs__claude-opus-5.json" }, "deepseek-qwen35": { "key": "deepseek-qwen35", "label": "DeepSeek vs Qwen 3.5", "first": "deepseek", "second": "qwen35", "status": "tie", "result": "Functional tie", "short_result": "Tie", "basis": "Both answers direct Hallowmere to cancel the three-day vote, preserve records, protect the audit, pay the vested $920,000 allocation, investigate independently, use only proportionate interim restrictions, and pursue expulsion only upon independently proven cause through disinterested voters and a fair process. No difference demonstrates a materially different client outcome.", "short_basis": "Both answers direct Hallowmere to cancel the three-day vote, preserve records, protect the audit, pay the vested $920,000 allocation, investigate independently, use only proportionate interim restrictions, and pursue expulsion only upon independently proven cause through disinterested voters and a fair…", "answer_a_was": "DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS", "answer_b_was": "Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_a_display": "DeepSeek V4-Flash-0731", "answer_b_display": "Qwen 3.5 27B", "winner": "TIE", "verdict_code": "TIE", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-2/verdicts/q51__DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS__vs__Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL.json" }, "qwen35-claude": { "key": "qwen35-claude", "label": "Qwen 3.5 vs Claude", "first": "qwen35", "second": "claude", "status": "tie", "result": "Functional tie", "short_result": "Tie", "basis": "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.", "short_basis": "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.", "answer_a_was": "claude-opus-5", "answer_b_was": "Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_a_display": "Claude Opus 5", "answer_b_display": "Qwen 3.5 27B", "winner": "TIE", "verdict_code": "TIE", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-2/verdicts/q51__Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__vs__claude-opus-5.json" } }, "rejected_points": { "qwen38": 0, "deepseek": 3, "claude": 13, "qwen35": 7 }, "delivery_filter_matter": false }, { "qid": "q52", "number": 52, "series": "Series 2", "title": "The Franchise Termination Notice", "category": "Franchise law", "matter_page": "matters/q52/index.html", "question_file": "evidence/series-2/questions/q52.md", "key_file": "evidence/series-2/keys/q52.md", "answers": { "deepseek": "evidence/series-2/answers/DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS/DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS__q52_r1.md", "claude": "evidence/series-2/answers/claude-opus-5/claude-opus-5__q52_r1.md", "qwen35": "evidence/series-2/answers/Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL/Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__q52_r1.md", "qwen38": "evidence/series-2/answers/Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL/Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__q52_r1.md" }, "reasoning": { "deepseek": "evidence/series-2/answers/DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS/DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS__q52_r1.reasoning.md", "claude": "evidence/series-2/answers/claude-opus-5/claude-opus-5__q52_r1.reasoning.md", "qwen35": "evidence/series-2/answers/Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL/Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__q52_r1.reasoning.md", "qwen38": "evidence/series-2/answers/Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL/Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__q52_r1.reasoning.md" }, "pairings": { "qwen38-claude": { "key": "qwen38-claude", "label": "Qwen 3.8 vs Claude", "first": "qwen38", "second": "claude", "status": "tie", "result": "Functional tie", "short_result": "Tie", "basis": "Both answers direct Harbor Crust to challenge the defective 15-day termination, seek emergency injunctive relief, complete and document the remodel by March 24, maintain logging and current payments, demand comparator files, and reject the proposed broad release and future waiver. Their differences do not alter that materially correct and safe course or produce a demonstrated different outcome for Harbor Crust.", "short_basis": "Both answers direct Harbor Crust to challenge the defective 15-day termination, seek emergency injunctive relief, complete and document the remodel by March 24, maintain logging and current payments, demand comparator files, and reject the proposed broad release and future waiver.", "answer_a_was": "claude-opus-5", "answer_b_was": "Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_a_display": "Claude Opus 5", "answer_b_display": "Qwen 3.8 27B", "winner": "TIE", "verdict_code": "TIE", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-2/verdicts/q52__Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__vs__claude-opus-5.json" }, "qwen38-deepseek": { "key": "qwen38-deepseek", "label": "Qwen 3.8 vs DeepSeek", "first": "qwen38", "second": "deepseek", "status": "tie", "result": "Functional tie", "short_result": "Tie", "basis": "Both answers direct Harbor Crust to enjoin the premature March 16 termination, complete and document the remodel, maintain the other cures, pay undisputed amounts, seek comparator discovery, and reject the proposed $150,000 release package. Both therefore place Harbor Crust on the same materially correct and safe litigation, cure, discovery, and settlement path.", "short_basis": "Both answers direct Harbor Crust to enjoin the premature March 16 termination, complete and document the remodel, maintain the other cures, pay undisputed amounts, seek comparator discovery, and reject the proposed $150,000 release package.", "answer_a_was": "DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS", "answer_b_was": "Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_a_display": "DeepSeek V4-Flash-0731", "answer_b_display": "Qwen 3.8 27B", "winner": "TIE", "verdict_code": "TIE", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-2/verdicts/q52__DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS__vs__Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL.json" }, "qwen38-qwen35": { "key": "qwen38-qwen35", "label": "Qwen 3.8 vs Qwen 3.5", "first": "qwen38", "second": "qwen35", "status": "tie", "result": "Functional tie", "short_result": "Tie", "basis": "Both answers direct Harbor Crust to seek immediate injunctive relief against the defective March 16 termination, continue curing and paying undisputed obligations, complete and document the remodel, demand comparator evidence, and reject the $150,000 blanket-release proposal. Their differences do not demonstrate a materially different action or client outcome on the supplied record.", "short_basis": "Both answers direct Harbor Crust to seek immediate injunctive relief against the defective March 16 termination, continue curing and paying undisputed obligations, complete and document the remodel, demand comparator evidence, and reject the $150,000 blanket-release proposal.", "answer_a_was": "Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_b_was": "Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_a_display": "Qwen 3.8 27B", "answer_b_display": "Qwen 3.5 27B", "winner": "TIE", "verdict_code": "TIE", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-2/verdicts/q52__Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__vs__Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL.json" }, "deepseek-claude": { "key": "deepseek-claude", "label": "DeepSeek vs Claude", "first": "deepseek", "second": "claude", "status": "tie", "result": "Functional tie", "short_result": "Tie", "basis": "Both answers direct counsel to challenge the invalid March 16 termination, seek immediate injunctive relief, complete and document the remodel by March 24, maintain logging and payments, demand comparator records under confidentiality protections, and reject the $150,000 waiver proposal. Their differing characterizations and additional proposed terms do not alter Harbor Crust’s materially correct and safe course.", "short_basis": "Both answers direct counsel to challenge the invalid March 16 termination, seek immediate injunctive relief, complete and document the remodel by March 24, maintain logging and payments, demand comparator records under confidentiality protections, and reject the $150,000 waiver proposal.", "answer_a_was": "claude-opus-5", "answer_b_was": "DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS", "answer_a_display": "Claude Opus 5", "answer_b_display": "DeepSeek V4-Flash-0731", "winner": "TIE", "verdict_code": "TIE", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-2/verdicts/q52__DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS__vs__claude-opus-5.json" }, "deepseek-qwen35": { "key": "deepseek-qwen35", "label": "DeepSeek vs Qwen 3.5", "first": "deepseek", "second": "qwen35", "status": "tie", "result": "Functional tie", "short_result": "Tie", "basis": "Both answers direct Harbor Crust to seek immediate injunctive relief, complete and document the March 24 remodel, maintain logging and payments, demand comparator files, and reject the proposed $150,000 release. Their differences do not alter the materially correct and safe path toward preserving the franchise.", "short_basis": "Both answers direct Harbor Crust to seek immediate injunctive relief, complete and document the March 24 remodel, maintain logging and payments, demand comparator files, and reject the proposed $150,000 release.", "answer_a_was": "Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_b_was": "DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS", "answer_a_display": "Qwen 3.5 27B", "answer_b_display": "DeepSeek V4-Flash-0731", "winner": "TIE", "verdict_code": "TIE", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-2/verdicts/q52__DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS__vs__Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL.json" }, "qwen35-claude": { "key": "qwen35-claude", "label": "Qwen 3.5 vs Claude", "first": "qwen35", "second": "claude", "status": "tie", "result": "Functional tie", "short_result": "Tie", "basis": "Both answers direct Harbor Crust to challenge the invalid 15-day termination, seek immediate injunctive relief, complete and document all cures, remain current on payments, demand materially similar comparator files, and reject the proposed release as structured. Their unsupported embellishments are readily rejected without altering that materially correct and safe course.", "short_basis": "Both answers direct Harbor Crust to challenge the invalid 15-day termination, seek immediate injunctive relief, complete and document all cures, remain current on payments, demand materially similar comparator files, and reject the proposed release as structured.", "answer_a_was": "Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_b_was": "claude-opus-5", "answer_a_display": "Qwen 3.5 27B", "answer_b_display": "Claude Opus 5", "winner": "TIE", "verdict_code": "TIE", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-2/verdicts/q52__Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__vs__claude-opus-5.json" } }, "rejected_points": { "qwen38": 1, "deepseek": 4, "claude": 11, "qwen35": 8 }, "delivery_filter_matter": false }, { "qid": "q53", "number": 53, "series": "Series 2", "title": "The Resale Price Policy", "category": "Antitrust", "matter_page": "matters/q53/index.html", "question_file": "evidence/series-2/questions/q53.md", "key_file": "evidence/series-2/keys/q53.md", "answers": { "deepseek": "evidence/series-2/answers/DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS/DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS__q53_r1.md", "claude": "evidence/series-2/answers/claude-opus-5/claude-opus-5__q53_r1.md", "qwen35": "evidence/series-2/answers/Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL/Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__q53_r1.md", "qwen38": "evidence/series-2/answers/Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL/Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__q53_r1.md" }, "reasoning": { "deepseek": "evidence/series-2/answers/DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS/DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS__q53_r1.reasoning.md", "claude": "evidence/series-2/answers/claude-opus-5/claude-opus-5__q53_r1.reasoning.md", "qwen35": "evidence/series-2/answers/Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL/Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__q53_r1.reasoning.md", "qwen38": "evidence/series-2/answers/Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL/Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__q53_r1.reasoning.md" }, "pairings": { "qwen38-claude": { "key": "qwen38-claude", "label": "Qwen 3.8 vs Claude", "first": "qwen38", "second": "claude", "status": "tie", "result": "Functional tie", "short_result": "Tie", "basis": "Both answers direct Norvale to reject Sales’s concerted features and adopt a prospective, public-ad-only policy with no retailer assent, negotiated exceptions, enforcement assurances, complaint-policing system, or transaction-price controls. After ordinary verification of the noted inconsistencies and overstatement, both readers reach the same materially correct and safe implementation path.", "short_basis": "Both answers direct Norvale to reject Sales’s concerted features and adopt a prospective, public-ad-only policy with no retailer assent, negotiated exceptions, enforcement assurances, complaint-policing system, or transaction-price controls.", "answer_a_was": "claude-opus-5", "answer_b_was": "Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_a_display": "Claude Opus 5", "answer_b_display": "Qwen 3.8 27B", "winner": "TIE", "verdict_code": "TIE", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-2/verdicts/q53__Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__vs__claude-opus-5.json" }, "qwen38-deepseek": { "key": "qwen38-deepseek", "label": "Qwen 3.8 vs DeepSeek", "first": "qwen38", "second": "deepseek", "status": "tie", "result": "Functional tie", "short_result": "Tie", "basis": "Both answers direct Norvale to reject Sales’s concerted features and adopt a prospective, advertising-only unilateral MAP policy with no retailer assent, negotiated exceptions, enforcement assurances, complaint-based policing, or transaction-price monitoring. Both recommend objective exceptions, independent monitoring, centralized training and documentation, and unilateral enforcement supported by the same service rationale and market facts.", "short_basis": "Both answers direct Norvale to reject Sales’s concerted features and adopt a prospective, advertising-only unilateral MAP policy with no retailer assent, negotiated exceptions, enforcement assurances, complaint-based policing, or transaction-price monitoring.", "answer_a_was": "DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS", "answer_b_was": "Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_a_display": "DeepSeek V4-Flash-0731", "answer_b_display": "Qwen 3.8 27B", "winner": "TIE", "verdict_code": "TIE", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-2/verdicts/q53__DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS__vs__Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL.json" }, "qwen38-qwen35": { "key": "qwen38-qwen35", "label": "Qwen 3.8 vs Qwen 3.5", "first": "qwen38", "second": "qwen35", "status": "tie", "result": "Functional tie", "short_result": "Tie", "basis": "Both readers would reject Sales’ agreement-creating features and implement a prospective, advertising-only MAP policy with objective exceptions, independent monitoring, no retailer assurances or solicited reporting, and unilateral documented enforcement. Answer B’s acceptance language is facially inconsistent with the supplied rules and would be removed through ordinary verification, leaving the same materially safe implementation path as Answer A.", "short_basis": "Both readers would reject Sales’ agreement-creating features and implement a prospective, advertising-only MAP policy with objective exceptions, independent monitoring, no retailer assurances or solicited reporting, and unilateral documented enforcement.", "answer_a_was": "Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_b_was": "Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_a_display": "Qwen 3.8 27B", "answer_b_display": "Qwen 3.5 27B", "winner": "TIE", "verdict_code": "TIE", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-2/verdicts/q53__Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__vs__Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL.json" }, "deepseek-claude": { "key": "deepseek-claude", "label": "DeepSeek vs Claude", "first": "deepseek", "second": "claude", "status": "tie", "result": "Functional tie", "short_result": "Tie", "basis": "Both answers direct Norvale to adopt a prospective, advertising-only unilateral MAP policy while rejecting retailer promises, negotiated exceptions, enforcement guarantees, solicited reporting, and transaction-price policing. After ordinary verification of isolated unsupported or inconsistent statements, both readers reach the same materially lawful implementation path.", "short_basis": "Both answers direct Norvale to adopt a prospective, advertising-only unilateral MAP policy while rejecting retailer promises, negotiated exceptions, enforcement guarantees, solicited reporting, and transaction-price policing.", "answer_a_was": "DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS", "answer_b_was": "claude-opus-5", "answer_a_display": "DeepSeek V4-Flash-0731", "answer_b_display": "Claude Opus 5", "winner": "TIE", "verdict_code": "TIE", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-2/verdicts/q53__DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS__vs__claude-opus-5.json" }, "deepseek-qwen35": { "key": "deepseek-qwen35", "label": "DeepSeek vs Qwen 3.5", "first": "deepseek", "second": "qwen35", "status": "tie", "result": "Functional tie", "short_result": "Tie", "basis": "Both answers place Norvale on the same material path: adopt a prospective unilateral MAP policy limited to public advertising, reject retailer assent and enforcement assurances, use objective exceptions and independent monitoring, and document unilateral enforcement. Ordinary verification removes the disputed statements without requiring reconstruction or leaving Norvale unable to act safely.", "short_basis": "Both answers place Norvale on the same material path: adopt a prospective unilateral MAP policy limited to public advertising, reject retailer assent and enforcement assurances, use objective exceptions and independent monitoring, and document unilateral enforcement.", "answer_a_was": "Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_b_was": "DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS", "answer_a_display": "Qwen 3.5 27B", "answer_b_display": "DeepSeek V4-Flash-0731", "winner": "TIE", "verdict_code": "TIE", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-2/verdicts/q53__DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS__vs__Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL.json" }, "qwen35-claude": { "key": "qwen35-claude", "label": "Qwen 3.5 vs Claude", "first": "qwen35", "second": "claude", "status": "tie", "result": "Functional tie", "short_result": "Tie", "basis": "Both answers put Norvale on the same material path: adopt a prospective advertising-only MAP policy, seek no assent, reject guarantees and negotiated exceptions, use independent monitoring, and enforce objective criteria unilaterally. Answer B’s inconsistent acceptance, discretionary-authorization, and per se language would be rejected through ordinary verification against the supplied rules, leaving a materially safe implementation equivalent to Answer A’s.", "short_basis": "Both answers put Norvale on the same material path: adopt a prospective advertising-only MAP policy, seek no assent, reject guarantees and negotiated exceptions, use independent monitoring, and enforce objective criteria unilaterally.", "answer_a_was": "claude-opus-5", "answer_b_was": "Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_a_display": "Claude Opus 5", "answer_b_display": "Qwen 3.5 27B", "winner": "TIE", "verdict_code": "TIE", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-2/verdicts/q53__Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__vs__claude-opus-5.json" } }, "rejected_points": { "qwen38": 2, "deepseek": 6, "claude": 2, "qwen35": 8 }, "delivery_filter_matter": false }, { "qid": "q54", "number": 54, "series": "Series 2", "title": "The Merger Market With Missing Imports", "category": "Antitrust", "matter_page": "matters/q54/index.html", "question_file": "evidence/series-2/questions/q54.md", "key_file": "evidence/series-2/keys/q54.md", "answers": { "deepseek": "evidence/series-2/answers/DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS/DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS__q54_r1.md", "claude": "evidence/series-2/answers/claude-opus-5/claude-opus-5__q54_r1.md", "qwen35": "evidence/series-2/answers/Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL/Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__q54_r1.md", "qwen38": "evidence/series-2/answers/Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL/Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__q54_r1.md" }, "reasoning": { "deepseek": "evidence/series-2/answers/DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS/DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS__q54_r1.reasoning.md", "claude": "evidence/series-2/answers/claude-opus-5/claude-opus-5__q54_r1.reasoning.md", "qwen35": "evidence/series-2/answers/Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL/Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__q54_r1.reasoning.md", "qwen38": "evidence/series-2/answers/Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL/Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__q54_r1.reasoning.md" }, "pairings": { "qwen38-claude": { "key": "qwen38-claude", "label": "Qwen 3.8 vs Claude", "first": "qwen38", "second": "claude", "status": "tie", "result": "Functional tie", "short_result": "Tie", "basis": "Both answers put counsel on the same materially safe path: no yarn-market filing trigger, immediate verification of mesh imports and seller-level revenues, filing before closing if either mesh threshold is met or remains indeterminate, and no closing or premature integration without compliance. Their different preferred filing timing produces no concrete, record-supported difference in cost, delay, exposure, or transaction outcome.", "short_basis": "Both answers put counsel on the same materially safe path: no yarn-market filing trigger, immediate verification of mesh imports and seller-level revenues, filing before closing if either mesh threshold is met or remains indeterminate, and no closing or premature integration without compliance.", "answer_a_was": "claude-opus-5", "answer_b_was": "Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_a_display": "Claude Opus 5", "answer_b_display": "Qwen 3.8 27B", "winner": "TIE", "verdict_code": "TIE", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-2/verdicts/q54__Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__vs__claude-opus-5.json" }, "qwen38-deepseek": { "key": "qwen38-deepseek", "label": "Qwen 3.8 vs DeepSeek", "first": "qwen38", "second": "deepseek", "status": "tie", "result": "Functional tie", "short_result": "Tie", "basis": "Both answers correctly clear the industrial-yarn market, identify verified medical-mesh imports above $16 million as necessary to defeat the share trigger, and require seller-level data to resolve any remaining HHI issue. Both direct counsel to verify the obtainable data or file conservatively and prohibit closing without a required filing, placing the client on the same materially safe path.", "short_basis": "Both answers correctly clear the industrial-yarn market, identify verified medical-mesh imports above $16 million as necessary to defeat the share trigger, and require seller-level data to resolve any remaining HHI issue.", "answer_a_was": "DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS", "answer_b_was": "Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_a_display": "DeepSeek V4-Flash-0731", "answer_b_display": "Qwen 3.8 27B", "winner": "TIE", "verdict_code": "TIE", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-2/verdicts/q54__DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS__vs__Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL.json" }, "qwen38-qwen35": { "key": "qwen38-qwen35", "label": "Qwen 3.8 vs Qwen 3.5", "first": "qwen38", "second": "qwen35", "status": "local", "result": "Qwen 3.8 win", "short_result": "Qwen 3.8 win", "basis": "Answer A permits proceeding without filing when verified imports exceed $16 million even though, for imports between $16 million and approximately $23.923 million, the HHI increase exceeds 200 and postmerger HHI remains unresolved. Answer B requires seller-level HHI verification or a conservative filing, preventing an unverified no-filing decision and the resulting possibility of a noncompliant closing carrying a $40,000-per-day penalty for Alder.", "short_basis": "Answer A permits proceeding without filing when verified imports exceed $16 million even though, for imports between $16 million and approximately $23.923 million, the HHI increase exceeds 200 and postmerger HHI remains unresolved.", "answer_a_was": "Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_b_was": "Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_a_display": "Qwen 3.5 27B", "answer_b_display": "Qwen 3.8 27B", "winner": "Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "verdict_code": "B", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-2/verdicts/q54__Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__vs__Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL.json" }, "deepseek-claude": { "key": "deepseek-claude", "label": "DeepSeek vs Claude", "first": "deepseek", "second": "claude", "status": "tie", "result": "Functional tie", "short_result": "Tie", "basis": "Both answers correctly conclude that yarn creates neither a filing trigger nor a structural presumption, while mesh requires verified imports exceeding $16 million to defeat the share trigger and seller-level data to assess HHI. Both direct counsel to obtain the ten-day verification, file if imports are $16 million or less or HHI otherwise triggers, and file conservatively if the necessary data remain unavailable before closing.", "short_basis": "Both answers correctly conclude that yarn creates neither a filing trigger nor a structural presumption, while mesh requires verified imports exceeding $16 million to defeat the share trigger and seller-level data to assess HHI.", "answer_a_was": "claude-opus-5", "answer_b_was": "DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS", "answer_a_display": "Claude Opus 5", "answer_b_display": "DeepSeek V4-Flash-0731", "winner": "TIE", "verdict_code": "TIE", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-2/verdicts/q54__DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS__vs__claude-opus-5.json" }, "deepseek-qwen35": { "key": "deepseek-qwen35", "label": "DeepSeek vs Qwen 3.5", "first": "deepseek", "second": "qwen35", "status": "local", "result": "DeepSeek win", "short_result": "DeepSeek win", "basis": "Answer B permits proceeding without filing whenever verified imports exceed $16 million even though the unresolved medical-mesh HHI may independently trigger filing. Answer A instead requires seller-level verification or conservative filing, preventing an unfiled closing and the resulting $40,000-per-party daily penalties if the HHI threshold is met.", "short_basis": "Answer B permits proceeding without filing whenever verified imports exceed $16 million even though the unresolved medical-mesh HHI may independently trigger filing. Answer A instead requires seller-level verification or conservative filing, preventing an unfiled closing and the resulting $40,000-per-party…", "answer_a_was": "DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS", "answer_b_was": "Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_a_display": "DeepSeek V4-Flash-0731", "answer_b_display": "Qwen 3.5 27B", "winner": "DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS", "verdict_code": "A", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-2/verdicts/q54__DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS__vs__Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL.json" }, "qwen35-claude": { "key": "qwen35-claude", "label": "Qwen 3.5 vs Claude", "first": "qwen35", "second": "claude", "status": "frontier", "result": "Claude win", "short_result": "Claude win", "basis": "Answer B permits proceeding without filing whenever verified imports exceed $16 million, despite leaving the HHI trigger unresolved. Answer A correctly identifies the approximately $16–$23.9 million band in which the share trigger fails but the HHI increase exceeds 200, requiring seller-level HHI analysis or a conservative filing before closing; otherwise each party may incur $40,000 per day if postmerger HHI exceeds 1,800.", "short_basis": "Answer B permits proceeding without filing whenever verified imports exceed $16 million, despite leaving the HHI trigger unresolved. Answer A correctly identifies the approximately $16–$23.9 million band in which the share trigger fails but the HHI increase exceeds 200, requiring seller-level HHI analysis…", "answer_a_was": "claude-opus-5", "answer_b_was": "Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_a_display": "Claude Opus 5", "answer_b_display": "Qwen 3.5 27B", "winner": "claude-opus-5", "verdict_code": "A", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-2/verdicts/q54__Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__vs__claude-opus-5.json" } }, "rejected_points": { "qwen38": 3, "deepseek": 2, "claude": 4, "qwen35": 4 }, "delivery_filter_matter": false }, { "qid": "q55", "number": 55, "series": "Series 2", "title": "The Noncompete Across Two States", "category": "Employment restrictions", "matter_page": "matters/q55/index.html", "question_file": "evidence/series-2/questions/q55.md", "key_file": "evidence/series-2/keys/q55.md", "answers": { "deepseek": "evidence/series-2/answers/DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS/DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS__q55_r1.md", "claude": "evidence/series-2/answers/claude-opus-5/claude-opus-5__q55_r1.md", "qwen35": "evidence/series-2/answers/Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL/Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__q55_r1.md", "qwen38": "evidence/series-2/answers/Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL/Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__q55_r1.md" }, "reasoning": { "deepseek": "evidence/series-2/answers/DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS/DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS__q55_r1.reasoning.md", "claude": "evidence/series-2/answers/claude-opus-5/claude-opus-5__q55_r1.reasoning.md", "qwen35": "evidence/series-2/answers/Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL/Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__q55_r1.reasoning.md", "qwen38": "evidence/series-2/answers/Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL/Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__q55_r1.reasoning.md" }, "pairings": { "qwen38-claude": { "key": "qwen38-claude", "label": "Qwen 3.8 vs Claude", "first": "qwen38", "second": "claude", "status": "tie", "result": "Functional tie", "short_result": "Tie", "basis": "Both answers lead the parties to the same material path: Bracken law likely voids the noncompete, nonsolicitation requires separate analysis and narrowing, and confidentiality relief should focus on the downloaded files rather than blocking Elise’s employment. Both support substantially the same immediate litigation measures and a settlement permitting the Beacon job while protecting personally served customers and confidential information.", "short_basis": "Both answers lead the parties to the same material path: Bracken law likely voids the noncompete, nonsolicitation requires separate analysis and narrowing, and confidentiality relief should focus on the downloaded files rather than blocking Elise’s employment.", "answer_a_was": "claude-opus-5", "answer_b_was": "Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_a_display": "Claude Opus 5", "answer_b_display": "Qwen 3.8 27B", "winner": "TIE", "verdict_code": "TIE", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-2/verdicts/q55__Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__vs__claude-opus-5.json" }, "qwen38-deepseek": { "key": "qwen38-deepseek", "label": "Qwen 3.8 vs DeepSeek", "first": "qwen38", "second": "deepseek", "status": "local", "result": "Qwen 3.8 win", "short_result": "Qwen 3.8 win", "basis": "Answer A predicts Bracken law for customer nonsolicitation and recommends seeking or accepting only six months of protection for personally served customers, despite the absence of a stated fundamental Bracken policy permitting displacement of the Arcadia choice on that issue. Answer B correctly preserves the stronger Arcadia-law position, allowing Arcadian to seek a reasonable 12-month restriction while retaining Bracken’s six-month rule as the alternative. Exact difference. Answer A states that “the safer prediction” is Bracken law for nonsolicitation; Answer B concludes that Arcadia law is more likely because no fundamental-policy exception is established for that separate issue. Different conduct. Following A, Arcadian seeks and bargains for only six months covering three customers; following B, it pleads and preserves a reasonable 12-month Arcadia-law restriction. Concrete consequence. Arcadian otherwise relinquishes up to six additional months of contractual customer protection, correspondingly expanding Elise’s ability to solicit those customers. Record support. The agreement selects Arcadia law and imposes a 12-month nonsolicitation clause; Arcadia has substantial contacts, while the rules identify only Bracken’s noncompete ban—not its nonsolicitation limits—as fundamental policy. Material magnitude. Six months of protection for customer relationships is a concrete commercial and settlement interest. Likelihood. A rational professional would preserve the likely governing-law claim rather than voluntarily cap requested relief before adjudication or settlement. No safe neutralization by ordinary verification. Correcting A requires reapplying the issue-specific choice-of-law framework and deriving the governing-law conclusion it misstated.", "short_basis": "Answer A predicts Bracken law for customer nonsolicitation and recommends seeking or accepting only six months of protection for personally served customers, despite the absence of a stated fundamental Bracken policy permitting displacement of the Arcadia choice on that issue.", "answer_a_was": "DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS", "answer_b_was": "Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_a_display": "DeepSeek V4-Flash-0731", "answer_b_display": "Qwen 3.8 27B", "winner": "Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "verdict_code": "B", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-2/verdicts/q55__DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS__vs__Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL.json" }, "qwen38-qwen35": { "key": "qwen38-qwen35", "label": "Qwen 3.8 vs Qwen 3.5", "first": "qwen38", "second": "qwen35", "status": "local", "result": "Qwen 3.8 win", "short_result": "Qwen 3.8 win", "basis": "Answer A incorrectly treats customer nonsolicitation as governed by Bracken’s noncompete policy, leading it to recommend conceding a six-month restriction limited to three customers. Answer B correctly separates that issue: because no fundamental Bracken policy concerning nonsolicitation is supplied, the Arcadia choice likely controls, materially preserving Arcadian’s ability to seek the contractual 12-month protection.", "short_basis": "Answer A incorrectly treats customer nonsolicitation as governed by Bracken’s noncompete policy, leading it to recommend conceding a six-month restriction limited to three customers.", "answer_a_was": "Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_b_was": "Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_a_display": "Qwen 3.5 27B", "answer_b_display": "Qwen 3.8 27B", "winner": "Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "verdict_code": "B", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-2/verdicts/q55__Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__vs__Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL.json" }, "deepseek-claude": { "key": "deepseek-claude", "label": "DeepSeek vs Claude", "first": "deepseek", "second": "claude", "status": "tie", "result": "Functional tie", "short_result": "Tie", "basis": "Both answers lead the parties to the same material path: Bracken law likely voids the noncompete, while Arcadian may pursue limited customer nonsolicitation and confidentiality or trade-secret relief based on the downloaded files. Their differences do not establish different likely conduct producing a concrete, record-supported consequence.", "short_basis": "Both answers lead the parties to the same material path: Bracken law likely voids the noncompete, while Arcadian may pursue limited customer nonsolicitation and confidentiality or trade-secret relief based on the downloaded files.", "answer_a_was": "DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS", "answer_b_was": "claude-opus-5", "answer_a_display": "DeepSeek V4-Flash-0731", "answer_b_display": "Claude Opus 5", "winner": "TIE", "verdict_code": "TIE", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-2/verdicts/q55__DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS__vs__claude-opus-5.json" }, "deepseek-qwen35": { "key": "deepseek-qwen35", "label": "DeepSeek vs Qwen 3.5", "first": "deepseek", "second": "qwen35", "status": "both", "result": "Both materially inadequate", "short_result": "Both inadequate", "basis": "Both answers predict that Bracken law likely governs customer nonsolicitation, even though the record identifies no fundamental Bracken policy overriding the otherwise enforceable Arcadia choice on that issue; ordinary differences in reasonableness standards expressly do not suffice. That shared error would cause Arcadian to surrender, and Elise to discount, potential Arcadia-law protection extending beyond six months and the three personally served customers, materially distorting injunction requests and settlement value.", "short_basis": "Both answers predict that Bracken law likely governs customer nonsolicitation, even though the record identifies no fundamental Bracken policy overriding the otherwise enforceable Arcadia choice on that issue; ordinary differences in reasonableness standards expressly do not suffice.", "answer_a_was": "Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_b_was": "DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS", "answer_a_display": "Qwen 3.5 27B", "answer_b_display": "DeepSeek V4-Flash-0731", "winner": "BOTH_INADEQUATE", "verdict_code": "BOTH_INADEQUATE", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-2/verdicts/q55__DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS__vs__Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL.json" }, "qwen35-claude": { "key": "qwen35-claude", "label": "Qwen 3.5 vs Claude", "first": "qwen35", "second": "claude", "status": "tie", "result": "Functional tie", "short_result": "Tie", "basis": "Both answers place the parties on the same material path: Arcadia has a substantial relationship, but Bracken law likely governs and voids the noncompete, while a six-month nonsolicitation limited to Elise’s three former customers and information-specific relief remain viable. Their differences do not establish a concrete change in litigation or settlement conduct supported by the supplied record.", "short_basis": "Both answers place the parties on the same material path: Arcadia has a substantial relationship, but Bracken law likely governs and voids the noncompete, while a six-month nonsolicitation limited to Elise’s three former customers and information-specific relief remain viable.", "answer_a_was": "Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_b_was": "claude-opus-5", "answer_a_display": "Qwen 3.5 27B", "answer_b_display": "Claude Opus 5", "winner": "TIE", "verdict_code": "TIE", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-2/verdicts/q55__Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__vs__claude-opus-5.json" } }, "rejected_points": { "qwen38": 2, "deepseek": 4, "claude": 9, "qwen35": 2 }, "delivery_filter_matter": false }, { "qid": "q56", "number": 56, "series": "Series 2", "title": "The Varen Judgment", "category": "Judgment recognition", "matter_page": "matters/q56/index.html", "question_file": "evidence/series-2/questions/q56.md", "key_file": "evidence/series-2/keys/q56.md", "answers": { "deepseek": "evidence/series-2/answers/DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS/DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS__q56_r1.md", "claude": "evidence/series-2/answers/claude-opus-5/claude-opus-5__q56_r1.md", "qwen35": "evidence/series-2/answers/Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL/Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__q56_r1.md", "qwen38": "evidence/series-2/answers/Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL/Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__q56_r1.md" }, "reasoning": { "deepseek": "evidence/series-2/answers/DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS/DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS__q56_r1.reasoning.md", "claude": "evidence/series-2/answers/claude-opus-5/claude-opus-5__q56_r1.reasoning.md", "qwen35": "evidence/series-2/answers/Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL/Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__q56_r1.reasoning.md", "qwen38": "evidence/series-2/answers/Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL/Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__q56_r1.reasoning.md" }, "pairings": { "qwen38-claude": { "key": "qwen38-claude", "label": "Qwen 3.8 vs Claude", "first": "qwen38", "second": "claude", "status": "tie", "result": "Functional tie", "short_result": "Tie", "basis": "Both answers place Rookwell on the same material path: concede finality, jurisdiction, and practical recognition of the $6.4 million compensatory award; defeat recognition of the severable $1.2 million public surcharge; and negotiate secured payment terms to prevent disruptive execution. Their differences concerning stay scope, alternative arguments, and ancillary investigation do not establish a materially better client outcome on this record.", "short_basis": "Both answers place Rookwell on the same material path: concede finality, jurisdiction, and practical recognition of the $6.4 million compensatory award; defeat recognition of the severable $1.2 million public surcharge; and negotiate secured payment terms to prevent disruptive execution.", "answer_a_was": "claude-opus-5", "answer_b_was": "Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_a_display": "Claude Opus 5", "answer_b_display": "Qwen 3.8 27B", "winner": "TIE", "verdict_code": "TIE", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-2/verdicts/q56__Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__vs__claude-opus-5.json" }, "qwen38-deepseek": { "key": "qwen38-deepseek", "label": "Qwen 3.8 vs DeepSeek", "first": "qwen38", "second": "deepseek", "status": "tie", "result": "Functional tie", "short_result": "Tie", "basis": "Both answers lead Rookwell to concede recognition of the $6.4 million compensatory award, oppose the severable $1.2 million public-law surcharge, and negotiate secured payment before execution. Their differing stay and negotiation tactics do not establish a materially different client outcome on this record.", "short_basis": "Both answers lead Rookwell to concede recognition of the $6.4 million compensatory award, oppose the severable $1.2 million public-law surcharge, and negotiate secured payment before execution. Their differing stay and negotiation tactics do not establish a materially different client outcome on this record.", "answer_a_was": "DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS", "answer_b_was": "Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_a_display": "DeepSeek V4-Flash-0731", "answer_b_display": "Qwen 3.8 27B", "winner": "TIE", "verdict_code": "TIE", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-2/verdicts/q56__DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS__vs__Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL.json" }, "qwen38-qwen35": { "key": "qwen38-qwen35", "label": "Qwen 3.8 vs Qwen 3.5", "first": "qwen38", "second": "qwen35", "status": "tie", "result": "Functional tie", "short_result": "Tie", "basis": "Both answers direct Rookwell to accept likely recognition of the $6.4 million compensatory award, defeat recognition of the severable $1.2 million public-law surcharge, avoid relying on the unsupported jurisdictional, notice, systemic-bias, fraud, and merits arguments, and negotiate secured payment terms. Their differences do not establish a materially different outcome on the supplied record.", "short_basis": "Both answers direct Rookwell to accept likely recognition of the $6.4 million compensatory award, defeat recognition of the severable $1.2 million public-law surcharge, avoid relying on the unsupported jurisdictional, notice, systemic-bias, fraud, and merits arguments, and negotiate secured payment terms.", "answer_a_was": "Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_b_was": "Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_a_display": "Qwen 3.8 27B", "answer_b_display": "Qwen 3.5 27B", "winner": "TIE", "verdict_code": "TIE", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-2/verdicts/q56__Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__vs__Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL.json" }, "deepseek-claude": { "key": "deepseek-claude", "label": "DeepSeek vs Claude", "first": "deepseek", "second": "claude", "status": "tie", "result": "Functional tie", "short_result": "Tie", "basis": "Both answers lead Rookwell to concede recognition of the $6.4 million compensatory award, oppose and sever the $1.2 million public-law surcharge, avoid a full-recognition challenge or general stay, and negotiate secured repayment before execution. Their additional differences do not establish a materially different client action or outcome.", "short_basis": "Both answers lead Rookwell to concede recognition of the $6.4 million compensatory award, oppose and sever the $1.2 million public-law surcharge, avoid a full-recognition challenge or general stay, and negotiate secured repayment before execution.", "answer_a_was": "DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS", "answer_b_was": "claude-opus-5", "answer_a_display": "DeepSeek V4-Flash-0731", "answer_b_display": "Claude Opus 5", "winner": "TIE", "verdict_code": "TIE", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-2/verdicts/q56__DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS__vs__claude-opus-5.json" }, "deepseek-qwen35": { "key": "deepseek-qwen35", "label": "DeepSeek vs Qwen 3.5", "first": "deepseek", "second": "qwen35", "status": "tie", "result": "Functional tie", "short_result": "Tie", "basis": "Both answers direct Rookwell to accept recognition of the final $6.4 million compensatory award, seek severance of the nonrecognizable $1.2 million surcharge, avoid a full opposition, and negotiate secured payment terms before execution. Their differences do not establish any materially different legal, financial, or operational outcome.", "short_basis": "Both answers direct Rookwell to accept recognition of the final $6.4 million compensatory award, seek severance of the nonrecognizable $1.2 million surcharge, avoid a full opposition, and negotiate secured payment terms before execution.", "answer_a_was": "DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS", "answer_b_was": "Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_a_display": "DeepSeek V4-Flash-0731", "answer_b_display": "Qwen 3.5 27B", "winner": "TIE", "verdict_code": "TIE", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-2/verdicts/q56__DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS__vs__Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL.json" }, "qwen35-claude": { "key": "qwen35-claude", "label": "Qwen 3.5 vs Claude", "first": "qwen35", "second": "claude", "status": "tie", "result": "Functional tie", "short_result": "Tie", "basis": "Both answers direct Rookwell to concede recognition of the final and enforceable $6.4 million compensatory award, oppose the severable $1.2 million public-law surcharge, avoid meritless jurisdictional, notice, fraud, and systemic objections, and negotiate secured payment terms before execution. Their readers therefore take the same materially correct and safe path.", "short_basis": "Both answers direct Rookwell to concede recognition of the final and enforceable $6.4 million compensatory award, oppose the severable $1.2 million public-law surcharge, avoid meritless jurisdictional, notice, fraud, and systemic objections, and negotiate secured payment terms before execution.", "answer_a_was": "Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_b_was": "claude-opus-5", "answer_a_display": "Qwen 3.5 27B", "answer_b_display": "Claude Opus 5", "winner": "TIE", "verdict_code": "TIE", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-2/verdicts/q56__Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__vs__claude-opus-5.json" } }, "rejected_points": { "qwen38": 5, "deepseek": 2, "claude": 11, "qwen35": 9 }, "delivery_filter_matter": false }, { "qid": "q57", "number": 57, "series": "Series 2", "title": "The Subscription Fee Class Before the Files Arrive", "category": "Class actions", "matter_page": "matters/q57/index.html", "question_file": "evidence/series-2/questions/q57.md", "key_file": "evidence/series-2/keys/q57.md", "answers": { "deepseek": "evidence/series-2/answers/DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS/DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS__q57_r1.md", "claude": "evidence/series-2/answers/claude-opus-5/claude-opus-5__q57_r1.md", "qwen35": "evidence/series-2/answers/Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL/Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__q57_r1.md", "qwen38": "evidence/series-2/answers/Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL/Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__q57_r1.md" }, "reasoning": { "deepseek": "evidence/series-2/answers/DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS/DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS__q57_r1.reasoning.md", "claude": "evidence/series-2/answers/claude-opus-5/claude-opus-5__q57_r1.reasoning.md", "qwen35": "evidence/series-2/answers/Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL/Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__q57_r1.reasoning.md", "qwen38": "evidence/series-2/answers/Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL/Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__q57_r1.reasoning.md" }, "pairings": { "qwen38-claude": { "key": "qwen38-claude", "label": "Qwen 3.8 vs Claude", "first": "qwen38", "second": "claude", "status": "tie", "result": "Functional tie", "short_result": "Tie", "basis": "Both answers direct StreamLedger to seek prompt, targeted production and limited deferral while preparing and timely filing a present-record opposition, rejecting a broad six-month stay and preserving narrower subclass or issue-class arguments. Their differences in emphasis, scheduling, and internal preparation do not demonstrate a different filing outcome or concrete consequence to StreamLedger.", "short_basis": "Both answers direct StreamLedger to seek prompt, targeted production and limited deferral while preparing and timely filing a present-record opposition, rejecting a broad six-month stay and preserving narrower subclass or issue-class arguments.", "answer_a_was": "Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_b_was": "claude-opus-5", "answer_a_display": "Qwen 3.8 27B", "answer_b_display": "Claude Opus 5", "winner": "TIE", "verdict_code": "TIE", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-2/verdicts/q57__Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__vs__claude-opus-5.json" }, "qwen38-deepseek": { "key": "qwen38-deepseek", "label": "Qwen 3.8 vs DeepSeek", "first": "qwen38", "second": "deepseek", "status": "tie", "result": "Functional tie", "short_result": "Tie", "basis": "Both answers direct StreamLedger to seek limited deferral and targeted named-plaintiff production while preserving a timely present-record opposition, and both reject a broad six-month stay. Both place StreamLedger on the same material path regarding representative defects, enrollment-path variations, predominance, damages deductions, and possible narrower classes.", "short_basis": "Both answers direct StreamLedger to seek limited deferral and targeted named-plaintiff production while preserving a timely present-record opposition, and both reject a broad six-month stay.", "answer_a_was": "DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS", "answer_b_was": "Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_a_display": "DeepSeek V4-Flash-0731", "answer_b_display": "Qwen 3.8 27B", "winner": "TIE", "verdict_code": "TIE", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-2/verdicts/q57__DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS__vs__Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL.json" }, "qwen38-qwen35": { "key": "qwen38-qwen35", "label": "Qwen 3.8 vs Qwen 3.5", "first": "qwen38", "second": "qwen35", "status": "tie", "result": "Functional tie", "short_result": "Tie", "basis": "Both answers place StreamLedger on the same material path: promptly seek targeted named-plaintiff production, reject a broad six-month stay, preserve a timely present-record certification opposition, and request supplemental consideration after production. Their differences in sequencing and detail do not establish a concrete change to StreamLedger’s procedural or legal position.", "short_basis": "Both answers place StreamLedger on the same material path: promptly seek targeted named-plaintiff production, reject a broad six-month stay, preserve a timely present-record certification opposition, and request supplemental consideration after production.", "answer_a_was": "Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_b_was": "Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_a_display": "Qwen 3.8 27B", "answer_b_display": "Qwen 3.5 27B", "winner": "TIE", "verdict_code": "TIE", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-2/verdicts/q57__Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__vs__Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL.json" }, "deepseek-claude": { "key": "deepseek-claude", "label": "DeepSeek vs Claude", "first": "deepseek", "second": "claude", "status": "tie", "result": "Functional tie", "short_result": "Tie", "basis": "Both answers put StreamLedger on the same material path: promptly seek targeted production and deferral, file a timely alternative opposition challenging the representatives, pathwide predominance, and damages model, and reject a broad six-month stay. Their differences in emphasis, proposed fallback classes, and record-building detail do not establish a different, directionally better outcome for StreamLedger.", "short_basis": "Both answers put StreamLedger on the same material path: promptly seek targeted production and deferral, file a timely alternative opposition challenging the representatives, pathwide predominance, and damages model, and reject a broad six-month stay.", "answer_a_was": "DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS", "answer_b_was": "claude-opus-5", "answer_a_display": "DeepSeek V4-Flash-0731", "answer_b_display": "Claude Opus 5", "winner": "TIE", "verdict_code": "TIE", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-2/verdicts/q57__DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS__vs__claude-opus-5.json" }, "deepseek-qwen35": { "key": "deepseek-qwen35", "label": "DeepSeek vs Qwen 3.5", "first": "deepseek", "second": "qwen35", "status": "tie", "result": "Functional tie", "short_result": "Tie", "basis": "Both answers direct StreamLedger to seek targeted production of the named plaintiffs’ files, oppose certification on the present record, reject a broad stay, and preserve path-specific predominance, assent, and damages objections. Ordinary verification removes the isolated unsupported statements without changing that materially safe filing strategy.", "short_basis": "Both answers direct StreamLedger to seek targeted production of the named plaintiffs’ files, oppose certification on the present record, reject a broad stay, and preserve path-specific predominance, assent, and damages objections.", "answer_a_was": "Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_b_was": "DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS", "answer_a_display": "Qwen 3.5 27B", "answer_b_display": "DeepSeek V4-Flash-0731", "winner": "TIE", "verdict_code": "TIE", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-2/verdicts/q57__DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS__vs__Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL.json" }, "qwen35-claude": { "key": "qwen35-claude", "label": "Qwen 3.5 vs Claude", "first": "qwen35", "second": "claude", "status": "frontier", "result": "Claude win", "short_result": "Claude win", "basis": "Answer A directs StreamLedger to use the remaining 21 days to create and file an authenticated evidentiary record supporting its certification opposition even if deferral is denied. Answer B instead directs filing on Day 10 and identifies only the prior discovery request as an attachment, leaving the court without specified company declarations establishing the enrollment variations, payment data, scripts, and queue performance. That difference materially affects whether StreamLedger can oppose immediate certification with evidence rather than attorney argument.", "short_basis": "Answer A directs StreamLedger to use the remaining 21 days to create and file an authenticated evidentiary record supporting its certification opposition even if deferral is denied.", "answer_a_was": "claude-opus-5", "answer_b_was": "Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_a_display": "Claude Opus 5", "answer_b_display": "Qwen 3.5 27B", "winner": "claude-opus-5", "verdict_code": "A", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-2/verdicts/q57__Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__vs__claude-opus-5.json" } }, "rejected_points": { "qwen38": 2, "deepseek": 2, "claude": 7, "qwen35": 10 }, "delivery_filter_matter": false }, { "qid": "q58", "number": 58, "series": "Series 2", "title": "The Settlement Notice That Does Not Add Up", "category": "Class settlements", "matter_page": "matters/q58/index.html", "question_file": "evidence/series-2/questions/q58.md", "key_file": "evidence/series-2/keys/q58.md", "answers": { "deepseek": "evidence/series-2/answers/DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS/DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS__q58_r1.md", "claude": "evidence/series-2/answers/claude-opus-5/claude-opus-5__q58_r1.md", "qwen35": "evidence/series-2/answers/Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL/Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__q58_r1.md", "qwen38": "evidence/series-2/answers/Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL/Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__q58_r1.md" }, "reasoning": { "deepseek": "evidence/series-2/answers/DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS/DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS__q58_r1.reasoning.md", "claude": "evidence/series-2/answers/claude-opus-5/claude-opus-5__q58_r1.reasoning.md", "qwen35": "evidence/series-2/answers/Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL/Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__q58_r1.reasoning.md", "qwen38": "evidence/series-2/answers/Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL/Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__q58_r1.reasoning.md" }, "pairings": { "qwen38-claude": { "key": "qwen38-claude", "label": "Qwen 3.8 vs Claude", "first": "qwen38", "second": "claude", "status": "tie", "result": "Functional tie", "short_result": "Tie", "basis": "Both answers stop transmission, correct the net fund to $3,500,000, the point value to $350, Maya Ortiz’s estimate to $2,100, and the release’s scope and period. Both preserve the accurate tax and procedure paragraphs and correctly conclude that no renewed decision period is required because no notice was distributed.", "short_basis": "Both answers stop transmission, correct the net fund to $3,500,000, the point value to $350, Maya Ortiz’s estimate to $2,100, and the release’s scope and period. Both preserve the accurate tax and procedure paragraphs and correctly conclude that no renewed decision period is required because no notice was…", "answer_a_was": "claude-opus-5", "answer_b_was": "Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_a_display": "Claude Opus 5", "answer_b_display": "Qwen 3.8 27B", "winner": "TIE", "verdict_code": "TIE", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-2/verdicts/q58__Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__vs__claude-opus-5.json" }, "qwen38-deepseek": { "key": "qwen38-deepseek", "label": "Qwen 3.8 vs DeepSeek", "first": "qwen38", "second": "deepseek", "status": "tie", "result": "Functional tie", "short_result": "Tie", "basis": "Both answers direct the administrator to stop transmission, correct the same fund, allocation, payment, and release errors, preserve the accurate tax and procedure language, and transmit without a renewed decision period. Their replacement language puts class members on the same materially accurate and safe path.", "short_basis": "Both answers direct the administrator to stop transmission, correct the same fund, allocation, payment, and release errors, preserve the accurate tax and procedure language, and transmit without a renewed decision period.", "answer_a_was": "DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS", "answer_b_was": "Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_a_display": "DeepSeek V4-Flash-0731", "answer_b_display": "Qwen 3.8 27B", "winner": "TIE", "verdict_code": "TIE", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-2/verdicts/q58__DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS__vs__Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL.json" }, "qwen38-qwen35": { "key": "qwen38-qwen35", "label": "Qwen 3.8 vs Qwen 3.5", "first": "qwen38", "second": "qwen35", "status": "tie", "result": "Functional tie", "short_result": "Tie", "basis": "Both answers direct the administrator to halt transmission, correct the fund to $3,500,000, use $350 per point and $2,100 for Maya, narrow the release, retain the accurate tax and procedure language, and provide no renewed period. Answer B’s fixed-cost wording and unsupported memorandum date are rejected through ordinary record verification, leaving both professionals on the same materially safe path.", "short_basis": "Both answers direct the administrator to halt transmission, correct the fund to $3,500,000, use $350 per point and $2,100 for Maya, narrow the release, retain the accurate tax and procedure language, and provide no renewed period.", "answer_a_was": "Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_b_was": "Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_a_display": "Qwen 3.8 27B", "answer_b_display": "Qwen 3.5 27B", "winner": "TIE", "verdict_code": "TIE", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-2/verdicts/q58__Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__vs__Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL.json" }, "deepseek-claude": { "key": "deepseek-claude", "label": "DeepSeek vs Claude", "first": "deepseek", "second": "claude", "status": "tie", "result": "Functional tie", "short_result": "Tie", "basis": "Both answers stop distribution, correct the omitted $270,000 agency allocation, use a $3,500,000 estimated net fund, calculate $350 per point and $2,100 for Ortiz, narrow the release to the executed terms, preserve the accurate tax and procedure language, and require no renewed period. Their additional differences do not establish a different material outcome after ordinary verification.", "short_basis": "Both answers stop distribution, correct the omitted $270,000 agency allocation, use a $3,500,000 estimated net fund, calculate $350 per point and $2,100 for Ortiz, narrow the release to the executed terms, preserve the accurate tax and procedure language, and require no renewed period.", "answer_a_was": "DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS", "answer_b_was": "claude-opus-5", "answer_a_display": "DeepSeek V4-Flash-0731", "answer_b_display": "Claude Opus 5", "winner": "TIE", "verdict_code": "TIE", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-2/verdicts/q58__DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS__vs__claude-opus-5.json" }, "deepseek-qwen35": { "key": "deepseek-qwen35", "label": "DeepSeek vs Qwen 3.5", "first": "deepseek", "second": "qwen35", "status": "tie", "result": "Functional tie", "short_result": "Tie", "basis": "Both answers direct the administrator to stop transmission, add the omitted $270,000 agency payment, correct the net fund to $3,500,000, the point value to $350, and Maya Ortiz’s estimate to $2,100, and replace the overbroad release with the agreement’s claims and period. Both preserve the accurate tax and procedure provisions and correctly conclude that no renewed notice period is required because distribution has not occurred.", "short_basis": "Both answers direct the administrator to stop transmission, add the omitted $270,000 agency payment, correct the net fund to $3,500,000, the point value to $350, and Maya Ortiz’s estimate to $2,100, and replace the overbroad release with the agreement’s claims and period.", "answer_a_was": "Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_b_was": "DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS", "answer_a_display": "Qwen 3.5 27B", "answer_b_display": "DeepSeek V4-Flash-0731", "winner": "TIE", "verdict_code": "TIE", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-2/verdicts/q58__DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS__vs__Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL.json" }, "qwen35-claude": { "key": "qwen35-claude", "label": "Qwen 3.5 vs Claude", "first": "qwen35", "second": "claude", "status": "tie", "result": "Functional tie", "short_result": "Tie", "basis": "Both answers direct the administrator to stop distribution, correct the omitted $270,000 agency payment, state the $3,500,000 net fund, use $350 per point and $2,100 for Ortiz, narrow the release, preserve the tax and procedure paragraphs, and proceed without a renewed period because nothing was distributed. Their remaining differences do not demonstrate materially different client conduct or consequences.", "short_basis": "Both answers direct the administrator to stop distribution, correct the omitted $270,000 agency payment, state the $3,500,000 net fund, use $350 per point and $2,100 for Ortiz, narrow the release, preserve the tax and procedure paragraphs, and proceed without a renewed period because nothing was distributed.", "answer_a_was": "Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_b_was": "claude-opus-5", "answer_a_display": "Qwen 3.5 27B", "answer_b_display": "Claude Opus 5", "winner": "TIE", "verdict_code": "TIE", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-2/verdicts/q58__Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__vs__claude-opus-5.json" } }, "rejected_points": { "qwen38": 0, "deepseek": 0, "claude": 8, "qwen35": 5 }, "delivery_filter_matter": false }, { "qid": "q59", "number": 59, "series": "Series 2", "title": "Three Rulings and One Appellate Budget", "category": "Appellate strategy", "matter_page": "matters/q59/index.html", "question_file": "evidence/series-2/questions/q59.md", "key_file": "evidence/series-2/keys/q59.md", "answers": { "deepseek": "evidence/series-2/answers/DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS/DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS__q59_r1.md", "claude": "evidence/series-2/answers/claude-opus-5/claude-opus-5__q59_r1.md", "qwen35": "evidence/series-2/answers/Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL/Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__q59_r1.md", "qwen38": "evidence/series-2/answers/Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL/Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__q59_r1.md" }, "reasoning": { "deepseek": "evidence/series-2/answers/DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS/DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS__q59_r1.reasoning.md", "claude": "evidence/series-2/answers/claude-opus-5/claude-opus-5__q59_r1.reasoning.md", "qwen35": "evidence/series-2/answers/Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL/Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__q59_r1.reasoning.md", "qwen38": "evidence/series-2/answers/Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL/Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__q59_r1.reasoning.md" }, "pairings": { "qwen38-claude": { "key": "qwen38-claude", "label": "Qwen 3.8 vs Claude", "first": "qwen38", "second": "claude", "status": "tie", "result": "Functional tie", "short_result": "Tie", "basis": "Both answers direct Helix to appeal Issues A and B, spend exactly the $150,000 budget, omit Issue C, and preserve the existing $2.1 million judgment. Answer A omits the supporting calculations and legal analysis, but the record does not demonstrate that its reader would take a materially different action or produce a different client outcome.", "short_basis": "Both answers direct Helix to appeal Issues A and B, spend exactly the $150,000 budget, omit Issue C, and preserve the existing $2.1 million judgment. Answer A omits the supporting calculations and legal analysis, but the record does not demonstrate that its reader would take a materially different action or…", "answer_a_was": "claude-opus-5", "answer_b_was": "Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_a_display": "Claude Opus 5", "answer_b_display": "Qwen 3.8 27B", "winner": "TIE", "verdict_code": "TIE", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-2/verdicts/q59__Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__vs__claude-opus-5.json" }, "qwen38-deepseek": { "key": "qwen38-deepseek", "label": "Qwen 3.8 vs DeepSeek", "first": "qwen38", "second": "deepseek", "status": "tie", "result": "Functional tie", "short_result": "Tie", "basis": "Both answers correctly calculate A at +$540,000, B at +$552,500, and C at −$260,000, rank B above A above C, and recommend appealing A and B for exactly $150,000 while omitting C to preserve the $2.1 million judgment. Both therefore put the board on the same materially correct and safe path. Additional explanation and alternative calculation methods — different conduct failed.", "short_basis": "Both answers correctly calculate A at +$540,000, B at +$552,500, and C at −$260,000, rank B above A above C, and recommend appealing A and B for exactly $150,000 while omitting C to preserve the $2.1 million judgment. Both therefore put the board on the same materially correct and safe path.", "answer_a_was": "DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS", "answer_b_was": "Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_a_display": "DeepSeek V4-Flash-0731", "answer_b_display": "Qwen 3.8 27B", "winner": "TIE", "verdict_code": "TIE", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-2/verdicts/q59__DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS__vs__Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL.json" }, "qwen38-qwen35": { "key": "qwen38-qwen35", "label": "Qwen 3.8 vs Qwen 3.5", "first": "qwen38", "second": "qwen35", "status": "tie", "result": "Functional tie", "short_result": "Tie", "basis": "Both readers would pursue Issues A and B for a combined expected incremental value of $1,092,500 within the $150,000 budget, while omitting negative-value Issue C and preserving the $2.1 million judgment. The answers produce identical material calculations, ranking, and conduct.", "short_basis": "Both readers would pursue Issues A and B for a combined expected incremental value of $1,092,500 within the $150,000 budget, while omitting negative-value Issue C and preserving the $2.1 million judgment. The answers produce identical material calculations, ranking, and conduct.", "answer_a_was": "Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_b_was": "Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_a_display": "Qwen 3.8 27B", "answer_b_display": "Qwen 3.5 27B", "winner": "TIE", "verdict_code": "TIE", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-2/verdicts/q59__Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__vs__Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL.json" }, "deepseek-claude": { "key": "deepseek-claude", "label": "DeepSeek vs Claude", "first": "deepseek", "second": "claude", "status": "local", "result": "DeepSeek win", "short_result": "DeepSeek win", "basis": "Answer A gives the correct ultimate recommendation but is visibly truncated before supplying any review-standard, risk, or expected-value analysis. A competent reader could not approve the $150,000 allocation from Answer A alone without reconstructing the omitted analysis, while Answer B establishes that appealing A and B yields $1,092,500 in expected incremental value and that appealing C destroys $260,000 in expected value.", "short_basis": "Answer A gives the correct ultimate recommendation but is visibly truncated before supplying any review-standard, risk, or expected-value analysis. A competent reader could not approve the $150,000 allocation from Answer A alone without reconstructing the omitted analysis, while Answer B establishes that…", "answer_a_was": "claude-opus-5", "answer_b_was": "DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS", "answer_a_display": "Claude Opus 5", "answer_b_display": "DeepSeek V4-Flash-0731", "winner": "DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS", "verdict_code": "B", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-2/verdicts/q59__DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS__vs__claude-opus-5.json" }, "deepseek-qwen35": { "key": "deepseek-qwen35", "label": "DeepSeek vs Qwen 3.5", "first": "deepseek", "second": "qwen35", "status": "tie", "result": "Functional tie", "short_result": "Tie", "basis": "Both answers correctly calculate A at +$540,000, B at +$552,500, and C at −$260,000, leading to the same ranking and recommendation: appeal A and B within the $150,000 budget and omit C to preserve the existing judgment.", "short_basis": "Both answers correctly calculate A at +$540,000, B at +$552,500, and C at −$260,000, leading to the same ranking and recommendation: appeal A and B within the $150,000 budget and omit C to preserve the existing judgment.", "answer_a_was": "Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_b_was": "DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS", "answer_a_display": "Qwen 3.5 27B", "answer_b_display": "DeepSeek V4-Flash-0731", "winner": "TIE", "verdict_code": "TIE", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-2/verdicts/q59__DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS__vs__Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL.json" }, "qwen35-claude": { "key": "qwen35-claude", "label": "Qwen 3.5 vs Claude", "first": "qwen35", "second": "claude", "status": "local", "result": "Qwen 3.5 win", "short_result": "Qwen 3.5 win", "basis": "Answer A gives the correct bottom-line selection but omits the requested expected-value calculations and supporting analysis, leaving the board unable to verify that spending the full $150,000 on A and B maximizes client value. Answer B supplies that decision-critical analysis, supporting authorization of A and B and preservation of their combined $1,092,500 expected incremental value while avoiding Issue C’s negative $260,000 value. Exact difference. Answer A ends after asserting “Appeal Issues A and B. Omit Issue C” and provides none of the required calculations, standards, ranking, or risk analysis. Different conduct. The reader of A cannot safely approve the allocation without reconstructing the analysis; the reader of B can approve A and B and omit C. Concrete consequence. Without a supportable authorization, Helix likely forgoes A and B’s combined $1,092,500 expected incremental value; B supports capturing that value without risking the existing judgment through C. Record support. The supplied probabilities, recoveries, remand costs, and briefing costs yield EIVs of $540,000 for A, $552,500 for B, and negative $260,000 for C. Material magnitude. The omitted analysis governs a $150,000 expenditure and more than $1 million in expected net financial benefit. Likelihood. The board expressly requested expected-value ranking to resolve disagreement between the chair and CFO, making an unsupported conclusion insufficient for a rational approval decision. No safe neutralization by ordinary verification. Verifying A’s recommendation requires independently deriving all three expected values and the budget optimization—the analysis A was required to provide.", "short_basis": "Answer A gives the correct bottom-line selection but omits the requested expected-value calculations and supporting analysis, leaving the board unable to verify that spending the full $150,000 on A and B maximizes client value.", "answer_a_was": "claude-opus-5", "answer_b_was": "Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_a_display": "Claude Opus 5", "answer_b_display": "Qwen 3.5 27B", "winner": "Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "verdict_code": "B", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-2/verdicts/q59__Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__vs__claude-opus-5.json" } }, "rejected_points": { "qwen38": 0, "deepseek": 0, "claude": 0, "qwen35": 4 }, "delivery_filter_matter": true }, { "qid": "q60", "number": 60, "series": "Series 2", "title": "The Motion That Tolls and the Motion That Does Not", "category": "Civil procedure", "matter_page": "matters/q60/index.html", "question_file": "evidence/series-2/questions/q60.md", "key_file": "evidence/series-2/keys/q60.md", "answers": { "deepseek": "evidence/series-2/answers/DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS/DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS__q60_r1.md", "claude": "evidence/series-2/answers/claude-opus-5/claude-opus-5__q60_r1.md", "qwen35": "evidence/series-2/answers/Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL/Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__q60_r1.md", "qwen38": "evidence/series-2/answers/Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL/Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__q60_r1.md" }, "reasoning": { "deepseek": "evidence/series-2/answers/DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS/DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS__q60_r1.reasoning.md", "claude": "evidence/series-2/answers/claude-opus-5/claude-opus-5__q60_r1.reasoning.md", "qwen35": "evidence/series-2/answers/Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL/Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__q60_r1.reasoning.md", "qwen38": "evidence/series-2/answers/Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL/Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__q60_r1.reasoning.md" }, "pairings": { "qwen38-claude": { "key": "qwen38-claude", "label": "Qwen 3.8 vs Claude", "first": "qwen38", "second": "claude", "status": "tie", "result": "Functional tie", "short_result": "Tie", "basis": "Both answers direct counsel to file the fee motion by May 15, a substantively proper Rule-1 motion by May 29, and a post-disposition notice by August 10 if denial is entered July 10; both correctly identify June 1 as the untolled deadline and reject any tolling effect from the May 8 motion. Answer A’s additional protective notice and internal precautions do not produce a concrete, record-supported difference in Marisol’s rights or recovery.", "short_basis": "Both answers direct counsel to file the fee motion by May 15, a substantively proper Rule-1 motion by May 29, and a post-disposition notice by August 10 if denial is entered July 10; both correctly identify June 1 as the untolled deadline and reject any tolling effect from the May 8 motion.", "answer_a_was": "claude-opus-5", "answer_b_was": "Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_a_display": "Claude Opus 5", "answer_b_display": "Qwen 3.8 27B", "winner": "TIE", "verdict_code": "TIE", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-2/verdicts/q60__Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__vs__claude-opus-5.json" }, "qwen38-deepseek": { "key": "qwen38-deepseek", "label": "Qwen 3.8 vs DeepSeek", "first": "qwen38", "second": "deepseek", "status": "tie", "result": "Functional tie", "short_result": "Tie", "basis": "Both answers direct counsel to file the fee motion by May 15, the substantive Rule-1 motion by May 29, and—because the May 8 motion does not toll—to file an appeal by June 1 absent tolling or by August 10 after the assumed July 10 disposition. Both recommend filing the notice after disposition and identify the same rights lost by missing each material deadline.", "short_basis": "Both answers direct counsel to file the fee motion by May 15, the substantive Rule-1 motion by May 29, and—because the May 8 motion does not toll—to file an appeal by June 1 absent tolling or by August 10 after the assumed July 10 disposition.", "answer_a_was": "DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS", "answer_b_was": "Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_a_display": "DeepSeek V4-Flash-0731", "answer_b_display": "Qwen 3.8 27B", "winner": "TIE", "verdict_code": "TIE", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-2/verdicts/q60__DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS__vs__Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL.json" }, "qwen38-qwen35": { "key": "qwen38-qwen35", "label": "Qwen 3.8 vs Qwen 3.5", "first": "qwen38", "second": "qwen35", "status": "tie", "result": "Functional tie", "short_result": "Tie", "basis": "Both answers direct counsel to file the fee motion by May 15, the substantive Rule-1 motion by May 29, and—if that motion is denied July 10—the notice of appeal after disposition by August 10. Both correctly reject the May 8 motion as non-tolling and identify June 1 as the untolled appeal deadline, so the client follows the same materially safe preservation path.", "short_basis": "Both answers direct counsel to file the fee motion by May 15, the substantive Rule-1 motion by May 29, and—if that motion is denied July 10—the notice of appeal after disposition by August 10.", "answer_a_was": "Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_b_was": "Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_a_display": "Qwen 3.5 27B", "answer_b_display": "Qwen 3.8 27B", "winner": "TIE", "verdict_code": "TIE", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-2/verdicts/q60__Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__vs__Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL.json" }, "deepseek-claude": { "key": "deepseek-claude", "label": "DeepSeek vs Claude", "first": "deepseek", "second": "claude", "status": "tie", "result": "Functional tie", "short_result": "Tie", "basis": "Both readers timely file the fee motion by May 15 and the substantive rule-1 motion by May 29, disregard the May 8 motion for tolling, and preserve the appeal by June 1 absent tolling or by August 10 after a July 10 disposition. Answer A’s additional protective notice creates no demonstrated difference in the client’s appellate rights because both plans ultimately require a proper post-disposition notice.", "short_basis": "Both readers timely file the fee motion by May 15 and the substantive rule-1 motion by May 29, disregard the May 8 motion for tolling, and preserve the appeal by June 1 absent tolling or by August 10 after a July 10 disposition.", "answer_a_was": "claude-opus-5", "answer_b_was": "DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS", "answer_a_display": "Claude Opus 5", "answer_b_display": "DeepSeek V4-Flash-0731", "winner": "TIE", "verdict_code": "TIE", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-2/verdicts/q60__DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS__vs__claude-opus-5.json" }, "deepseek-qwen35": { "key": "deepseek-qwen35", "label": "DeepSeek vs Qwen 3.5", "first": "deepseek", "second": "qwen35", "status": "tie", "result": "Functional tie", "short_result": "Tie", "basis": "Both answers direct counsel to file the fee motion by May 15, the substantive rule-1 motion by May 29, and—after a July 10 disposition—the notice of appeal by August 10. They agree that the May 8 motion does not toll, that the untolled appeal deadline is June 1, and that filing the notice after disposition is safer; no demonstrated difference changes Marisol’s preservation path.", "short_basis": "Both answers direct counsel to file the fee motion by May 15, the substantive rule-1 motion by May 29, and—after a July 10 disposition—the notice of appeal by August 10. They agree that the May 8 motion does not toll, that the untolled appeal deadline is June 1, and that filing the notice after disposition…", "answer_a_was": "DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS", "answer_b_was": "Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_a_display": "DeepSeek V4-Flash-0731", "answer_b_display": "Qwen 3.5 27B", "winner": "TIE", "verdict_code": "TIE", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-2/verdicts/q60__DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS__vs__Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL.json" }, "qwen35-claude": { "key": "qwen35-claude", "label": "Qwen 3.5 vs Claude", "first": "qwen35", "second": "claude", "status": "tie", "result": "Functional tie", "short_result": "Tie", "basis": "Both answers direct counsel to file the fee motion by May 15, a substantively valid rule-1 motion by May 29, and a post-disposition notice of appeal by August 10, while correctly treating the May 8 motion as non-tolling. Following either plan preserves the same $185,000 fee claim, $42,000 interest request, new-trial request, and appellate rights.", "short_basis": "Both answers direct counsel to file the fee motion by May 15, a substantively valid rule-1 motion by May 29, and a post-disposition notice of appeal by August 10, while correctly treating the May 8 motion as non-tolling.", "answer_a_was": "Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_b_was": "claude-opus-5", "answer_a_display": "Qwen 3.5 27B", "answer_b_display": "Claude Opus 5", "winner": "TIE", "verdict_code": "TIE", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-2/verdicts/q60__Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__vs__claude-opus-5.json" } }, "rejected_points": { "qwen38": 2, "deepseek": 2, "claude": 11, "qwen35": 4 }, "delivery_filter_matter": false }, { "qid": "q61", "number": 61, "series": "Series 2", "title": "The Interview Model Under the Old Screening Act", "category": "AI and employment regulation", "matter_page": "matters/q61/index.html", "question_file": "evidence/series-2/questions/q61.md", "key_file": "evidence/series-2/keys/q61.md", "answers": { "deepseek": "evidence/series-2/answers/DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS/DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS__q61_r1.md", "claude": "evidence/series-2/answers/claude-opus-5/claude-opus-5__q61_r1.md", "qwen35": "evidence/series-2/answers/Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL/Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__q61_r1.md", "qwen38": "evidence/series-2/answers/Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL/Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__q61_r1.md" }, "reasoning": { "deepseek": "evidence/series-2/answers/DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS/DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS__q61_r1.reasoning.md", "qwen35": "evidence/series-2/answers/Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL/Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__q61_r1.reasoning.md", "qwen38": "evidence/series-2/answers/Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL/Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__q61_r1.reasoning.md" }, "pairings": { "qwen38-claude": { "key": "qwen38-claude", "label": "Qwen 3.8 vs Claude", "first": "qwen38", "second": "claude", "status": "local", "result": "Qwen 3.8 win", "short_result": "Qwen 3.8 win", "basis": "Answer A gives Cinder Peak an immediately executable cure path: pause Mosaic’s evaluative functions, use only human or clerical processing, correct notice, commission an employer-specific audit, and document the response. Answer B is truncated before addressing the requested issues or recommending any action, leaving its reader unable to manage the ongoing use within the 30-day cure period without obtaining replacement analysis.", "short_basis": "Answer A gives Cinder Peak an immediately executable cure path: pause Mosaic’s evaluative functions, use only human or clerical processing, correct notice, commission an employer-specific audit, and document the response.", "answer_a_was": "Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_b_was": "claude-opus-5", "answer_a_display": "Qwen 3.8 27B", "answer_b_display": "Claude Opus 5", "winner": "Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "verdict_code": "A", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-2/verdicts/q61__Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__vs__claude-opus-5.json" }, "qwen38-deepseek": { "key": "qwen38-deepseek", "label": "Qwen 3.8 vs DeepSeek", "first": "qwen38", "second": "deepseek", "status": "tie", "result": "Functional tie", "short_result": "Tie", "basis": "Both answers conclude that Mosaic is covered, human override and the clerical exemption do not defeat coverage, current application is not retroactive, and the existing notice and audit are deficient. Both direct Cinder Peak to pause evaluative use within the cure period, use only a genuinely clerical or human-only alternative, provide compliant notice, obtain an employer-specific independent audit before resuming, and document the cure to the regulator.", "short_basis": "Both answers conclude that Mosaic is covered, human override and the clerical exemption do not defeat coverage, current application is not retroactive, and the existing notice and audit are deficient.", "answer_a_was": "DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS", "answer_b_was": "Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_a_display": "DeepSeek V4-Flash-0731", "answer_b_display": "Qwen 3.8 27B", "winner": "TIE", "verdict_code": "TIE", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-2/verdicts/q61__DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS__vs__Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL.json" }, "qwen38-qwen35": { "key": "qwen38-qwen35", "label": "Qwen 3.8 vs Qwen 3.5", "first": "qwen38", "second": "qwen35", "status": "local", "result": "Qwen 3.8 win", "short_result": "Qwen 3.8 win", "basis": "Answer A advises disabling only Mosaic’s recommendation while allowing its automated narrative assessments to continue pending compliance, even though those assessments remain covered evaluative outputs and no employer-specific audit exists. Answer B instead directs Cinder Peak to stop all evaluative functions until the required audit and notice are complete, preventing additional noncompliant uses and possible per-applicant exposure after the cure period. Exact difference. Answer A states that suppressing “advance/do not advance” recommendations “removes the argument that it ‘materially influences’ advancement”; Answer B requires disabling both recommendations and automated assessments. Different conduct. Under A, Cinder Peak may continue using Mosaic’s automated narrative evaluations while arranging the audit; under B, it pauses all evaluative use until compliance. Concrete consequence. A permits additional applicants to undergo covered automated evaluation without the required employer-specific audit, leaving Cinder Peak’s violation ongoing and creating per-applicant penalty exposure if that use continues beyond day 30; B prevents those additional noncompliant uses. Record support. Mosaic evaluates applicant characteristics through narratives, the definition covers a recommendation “or other output,” the audit is required before use, Cinder Peak lacks that audit, and continued post-cure use may be penalized per affected applicant. Material magnitude. The difference concerns statutory compliance for an active screening process previously used on 3,200 applicants, with potential exposure measured per affected applicant. Likelihood. A rational reader following A could suppress the binary recommendation yet continue receiving narrative assessments because A expressly describes that modification as removing material influence; B expressly prohibits that conduct. No safe neutralization by ordinary verification. Rejecting A’s recommendation-only theory does not itself supply the omitted instruction to disable content analysis and narrative assessments; reaching B’s safe configuration requires re-deriving which remaining functions are covered.", "short_basis": "Answer A advises disabling only Mosaic’s recommendation while allowing its automated narrative assessments to continue pending compliance, even though those assessments remain covered evaluative outputs and no employer-specific audit exists.", "answer_a_was": "Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_b_was": "Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_a_display": "Qwen 3.5 27B", "answer_b_display": "Qwen 3.8 27B", "winner": "Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "verdict_code": "B", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-2/verdicts/q61__Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__vs__Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL.json" }, "deepseek-claude": { "key": "deepseek-claude", "label": "DeepSeek vs Claude", "first": "deepseek", "second": "claude", "status": "local", "result": "DeepSeek win", "short_result": "DeepSeek win", "basis": "Answer A directs Cinder Peak to pause Mosaic’s evaluative functions, provide compliant notice, obtain an employer-specific audit, and report its cure within 30 days. Answer B ends after an initial coverage observation and supplies no completed analysis or cure plan, leaving the company without an answer-supported path to prevent continued noncompliance and per-applicant penalties after the cure period.", "short_basis": "Answer A directs Cinder Peak to pause Mosaic’s evaluative functions, provide compliant notice, obtain an employer-specific audit, and report its cure within 30 days. Answer B ends after an initial coverage observation and supplies no completed analysis or cure plan, leaving the company without an…", "answer_a_was": "DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS", "answer_b_was": "claude-opus-5", "answer_a_display": "DeepSeek V4-Flash-0731", "answer_b_display": "Claude Opus 5", "winner": "DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS", "verdict_code": "A", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-2/verdicts/q61__DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS__vs__claude-opus-5.json" }, "deepseek-qwen35": { "key": "deepseek-qwen35", "label": "DeepSeek vs Qwen 3.5", "first": "deepseek", "second": "qwen35", "status": "local", "result": "DeepSeek win", "short_result": "DeepSeek win", "basis": "Answer A treats disabling only Mosaic’s binary recommendation as potentially removing coverage, while leaving its evaluative narrative operating; Answer B requires disabling both outputs and remaining paused until the employer-specific audit is complete. Following Answer A’s proposed modification could therefore leave Cinder Peak using an unaudited screening instrument after the cure period, exposing it to per-applicant penalties. Exact difference: Answer A says stopping “advance/do not advance” recommendations “removes the argument that it ‘materially influences’ advancement,” but does not require disabling the evaluative narrative; Answer B requires disabling both. Different conduct: Under A, Cinder Peak may continue showing recruiters Mosaic’s narrative assessments while the audit is pending; under B, it limits Mosaic to recording/transcription until the audit is completed. Concrete consequence: Continued evaluative use after day 30 leaves Cinder Peak exposed to penalties for each affected applicant; B’s course avoids that continued violation. Record support: Mosaic evaluates communication, adaptability, and customer orientation, provides that assessment to recruiters, and the Act covers any output materially influencing advancement while requiring an employer-specific audit before use. Material magnitude: The system processed 3,200 applicants in six months, and penalties may accrue per affected applicant. Likelihood: A expressly offers recommendation-only suppression as an alternative to pausing Mosaic, making continued narrative use a rational implementation of its advice. No safe neutralization: Correcting A requires recognizing the narrative as an independently evaluative output and redesigning the proposed cure to disable it—analysis and action A did not supply.", "short_basis": "Answer A treats disabling only Mosaic’s binary recommendation as potentially removing coverage, while leaving its evaluative narrative operating; Answer B requires disabling both outputs and remaining paused until the employer-specific audit is complete.", "answer_a_was": "Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_b_was": "DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS", "answer_a_display": "Qwen 3.5 27B", "answer_b_display": "DeepSeek V4-Flash-0731", "winner": "DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS", "verdict_code": "B", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-2/verdicts/q61__DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS__vs__Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL.json" }, "qwen35-claude": { "key": "qwen35-claude", "label": "Qwen 3.5 vs Claude", "first": "qwen35", "second": "claude", "status": "local", "result": "Qwen 3.5 win", "short_result": "Qwen 3.5 win", "basis": "Answer A provides a substantially actionable cure plan: treat Mosaic as covered, stop its screening use pending compliance, correct the applicant notice, and obtain an employer-specific audit. Answer B ends before analyzing the duties or recommending any action, leaving its reader without an answer-supported response to the 30-day cure letter and exposing Cinder Peak to continued violations and per-applicant penalties.", "short_basis": "Answer A provides a substantially actionable cure plan: treat Mosaic as covered, stop its screening use pending compliance, correct the applicant notice, and obtain an employer-specific audit.", "answer_a_was": "Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_b_was": "claude-opus-5", "answer_a_display": "Qwen 3.5 27B", "answer_b_display": "Claude Opus 5", "winner": "Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "verdict_code": "A", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-2/verdicts/q61__Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__vs__claude-opus-5.json" } }, "rejected_points": { "qwen38": 0, "deepseek": 0, "claude": 0, "qwen35": 3 }, "delivery_filter_matter": true }, { "qid": "q62", "number": 62, "series": "Series 2", "title": "Four Subscribers Across an Effective Date", "category": "Consumer subscriptions", "matter_page": "matters/q62/index.html", "question_file": "evidence/series-2/questions/q62.md", "key_file": "evidence/series-2/keys/q62.md", "answers": { "deepseek": "evidence/series-2/answers/DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS/DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS__q62_r1.md", "claude": "evidence/series-2/answers/claude-opus-5/claude-opus-5__q62_r1.md", "qwen35": "evidence/series-2/answers/Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL/Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__q62_r1.md", "qwen38": "evidence/series-2/answers/Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL/Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__q62_r1.md" }, "reasoning": { "deepseek": "evidence/series-2/answers/DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS/DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS__q62_r1.reasoning.md", "claude": "evidence/series-2/answers/claude-opus-5/claude-opus-5__q62_r1.reasoning.md", "qwen35": "evidence/series-2/answers/Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL/Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__q62_r1.reasoning.md", "qwen38": "evidence/series-2/answers/Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL/Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__q62_r1.reasoning.md" }, "pairings": { "qwen38-claude": { "key": "qwen38-claude", "label": "Qwen 3.8 vs Claude", "first": "qwen38", "second": "claude", "status": "tie", "result": "Functional tie", "short_result": "Tie", "basis": "Both answers place Northwind on the same material path: concede Arlo’s two timely $200 claims and Drea’s two timely $500 claims, while defeating Bina’s and Cato’s claims, for total viable statutory exposure of $1,400. They also reach the same event-specific transition, limitations, filing-date, and continuing-violation conclusions.", "short_basis": "Both answers place Northwind on the same material path: concede Arlo’s two timely $200 claims and Drea’s two timely $500 claims, while defeating Bina’s and Cato’s claims, for total viable statutory exposure of $1,400.", "answer_a_was": "Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_b_was": "claude-opus-5", "answer_a_display": "Qwen 3.8 27B", "answer_b_display": "Claude Opus 5", "winner": "TIE", "verdict_code": "TIE", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-2/verdicts/q62__Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__vs__claude-opus-5.json" }, "qwen38-deepseek": { "key": "qwen38-deepseek", "label": "Qwen 3.8 vs DeepSeek", "first": "qwen38", "second": "deepseek", "status": "tie", "result": "Functional tie", "short_result": "Tie", "basis": "Both answers direct Northwind to recognize Arlo’s two timely former-Act claims for $400 and Drea’s two timely amended-Act claims for $1,000, while defeating Bina’s and Cato’s claims, for total viable statutory damages of $1,400. They apply the same event-specific transition rules, limitations periods, filing-date rule, and rejection of continuing-violation reasoning.", "short_basis": "Both answers direct Northwind to recognize Arlo’s two timely former-Act claims for $400 and Drea’s two timely amended-Act claims for $1,000, while defeating Bina’s and Cato’s claims, for total viable statutory damages of $1,400.", "answer_a_was": "DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS", "answer_b_was": "Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_a_display": "DeepSeek V4-Flash-0731", "answer_b_display": "Qwen 3.8 27B", "winner": "TIE", "verdict_code": "TIE", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-2/verdicts/q62__DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS__vs__Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL.json" }, "qwen38-qwen35": { "key": "qwen38-qwen35", "label": "Qwen 3.8 vs Qwen 3.5", "first": "qwen38", "second": "qwen35", "status": "tie", "result": "Functional tie", "short_result": "Tie", "basis": "Both answers direct Northwind to recognize Arlo’s two timely former-Act claims totaling $400 and Drea’s two timely amended-Act claims totaling $1,000, while defeating Bina’s renewal as untimely and Cato’s claims on merits and limitations grounds. Their different global settlement figures do not establish a different client outcome because the record supplies no bargaining, acceptance, fee, or litigation-cost facts.", "short_basis": "Both answers direct Northwind to recognize Arlo’s two timely former-Act claims totaling $400 and Drea’s two timely amended-Act claims totaling $1,000, while defeating Bina’s renewal as untimely and Cato’s claims on merits and limitations grounds.", "answer_a_was": "Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_b_was": "Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_a_display": "Qwen 3.5 27B", "answer_b_display": "Qwen 3.8 27B", "winner": "TIE", "verdict_code": "TIE", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-2/verdicts/q62__Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__vs__Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL.json" }, "deepseek-claude": { "key": "deepseek-claude", "label": "DeepSeek vs Claude", "first": "deepseek", "second": "claude", "status": "tie", "result": "Functional tie", "short_result": "Tie", "basis": "Both answers identify the same four viable claims, $1,400 total statutory damages, governing versions, limitations defenses, and materially identical settlement posture. Answer A’s additional conditional advice about later renewals does not establish additional exposure on the supplied record; once its unsupported quantification is rejected, both readers remain on the same materially safe path.", "short_basis": "Both answers identify the same four viable claims, $1,400 total statutory damages, governing versions, limitations defenses, and materially identical settlement posture. Answer A’s additional conditional advice about later renewals does not establish additional exposure on the supplied record; once its…", "answer_a_was": "claude-opus-5", "answer_b_was": "DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS", "answer_a_display": "Claude Opus 5", "answer_b_display": "DeepSeek V4-Flash-0731", "winner": "TIE", "verdict_code": "TIE", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-2/verdicts/q62__DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS__vs__claude-opus-5.json" }, "deepseek-qwen35": { "key": "deepseek-qwen35", "label": "DeepSeek vs Qwen 3.5", "first": "deepseek", "second": "qwen35", "status": "tie", "result": "Functional tie", "short_result": "Tie", "basis": "Both answers direct Northwind to recognize $400 in viable Arlo claims and $1,000 in viable Drea claims, while defeating Bina’s renewal, Cato’s cancellation, and Cato’s renewal claims. They therefore produce the same material litigation path and $1,400 statutory-damages exposure; their differing settlement figures are unsupported by facts concerning costs, risk tolerance, fees, or likely acceptance.", "short_basis": "Both answers direct Northwind to recognize $400 in viable Arlo claims and $1,000 in viable Drea claims, while defeating Bina’s renewal, Cato’s cancellation, and Cato’s renewal claims.", "answer_a_was": "DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS", "answer_b_was": "Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_a_display": "DeepSeek V4-Flash-0731", "answer_b_display": "Qwen 3.5 27B", "winner": "TIE", "verdict_code": "TIE", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-2/verdicts/q62__DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS__vs__Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL.json" }, "qwen35-claude": { "key": "qwen35-claude", "label": "Qwen 3.5 vs Claude", "first": "qwen35", "second": "claude", "status": "tie", "result": "Functional tie", "short_result": "Tie", "basis": "Both answers direct Northwind to concede $400 for Arlo and $1,000 for Drea, assert limitations against Bina’s and Cato’s July renewals, defeat Cato’s cancellation claim under the former Act, and reject retroactivity and continuing-violation theories. Their differing settlement figures and peripheral recommendations do not establish a different concrete outcome on the supplied record.", "short_basis": "Both answers direct Northwind to concede $400 for Arlo and $1,000 for Drea, assert limitations against Bina’s and Cato’s July renewals, defeat Cato’s cancellation claim under the former Act, and reject retroactivity and continuing-violation theories.", "answer_a_was": "Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_b_was": "claude-opus-5", "answer_a_display": "Qwen 3.5 27B", "answer_b_display": "Claude Opus 5", "winner": "TIE", "verdict_code": "TIE", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-2/verdicts/q62__Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__vs__claude-opus-5.json" } }, "rejected_points": { "qwen38": 2, "deepseek": 0, "claude": 6, "qwen35": 5 }, "delivery_filter_matter": false }, { "qid": "q63", "number": 63, "series": "Series 2", "title": "The Migration Claim Across Five Exhibits", "category": "Technology disputes", "matter_page": "matters/q63/index.html", "question_file": "evidence/series-2/questions/q63.md", "key_file": "evidence/series-2/keys/q63.md", "answers": { "deepseek": "evidence/series-2/answers/DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS/DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS__q63_r1.md", "claude": "evidence/series-2/answers/claude-opus-5/claude-opus-5__q63_r1.md", "qwen35": "evidence/series-2/answers/Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL/Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__q63_r1.md", "qwen38": "evidence/series-2/answers/Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL/Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__q63_r1.md" }, "reasoning": { "deepseek": "evidence/series-2/answers/DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS/DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS__q63_r1.reasoning.md", "claude": "evidence/series-2/answers/claude-opus-5/claude-opus-5__q63_r1.reasoning.md", "qwen35": "evidence/series-2/answers/Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL/Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__q63_r1.reasoning.md", "qwen38": "evidence/series-2/answers/Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL/Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__q63_r1.reasoning.md" }, "pairings": { "qwen38-claude": { "key": "qwen38-claude", "label": "Qwen 3.8 vs Claude", "first": "qwen38", "second": "claude", "status": "tie", "result": "Functional tie", "short_result": "Tie", "basis": "Both answers place Fathom on the same material path: treat January 2, 2023 as the negligence pivot, regard contract and fraud as timely on the supplied record, and obtain targeted evidence of when Quarry Ridge received or learned the report’s findings before moving. Both recommend a negligence limitations motion only if discovery occurred by January 1, 2023.", "short_basis": "Both answers place Fathom on the same material path: treat January 2, 2023 as the negligence pivot, regard contract and fraud as timely on the supplied record, and obtain targeted evidence of when Quarry Ridge received or learned the report’s findings before moving.", "answer_a_was": "Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_b_was": "claude-opus-5", "answer_a_display": "Qwen 3.8 27B", "answer_b_display": "Claude Opus 5", "winner": "TIE", "verdict_code": "TIE", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-2/verdicts/q63__Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__vs__claude-opus-5.json" }, "qwen38-deepseek": { "key": "qwen38-deepseek", "label": "Qwen 3.8 vs DeepSeek", "first": "qwen38", "second": "deepseek", "status": "tie", "result": "Functional tie", "short_result": "Tie", "basis": "Both answers conclude that the September email does not trigger discovery, calculate the same December 20, 2022–January 10, 2023 range and January 2, 2023 pivot, and direct Fathom to obtain the report-receipt date before moving only against professional negligence. Both also place the contract and fraud claims on the same timely path.", "short_basis": "Both answers conclude that the September email does not trigger discovery, calculate the same December 20, 2022–January 10, 2023 range and January 2, 2023 pivot, and direct Fathom to obtain the report-receipt date before moving only against professional negligence.", "answer_a_was": "DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS", "answer_b_was": "Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_a_display": "DeepSeek V4-Flash-0731", "answer_b_display": "Qwen 3.8 27B", "winner": "TIE", "verdict_code": "TIE", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-2/verdicts/q63__DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS__vs__Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL.json" }, "qwen38-qwen35": { "key": "qwen38-qwen35", "label": "Qwen 3.8 vs Qwen 3.5", "first": "qwen38", "second": "qwen35", "status": "tie", "result": "Functional tie", "short_result": "Tie", "basis": "Both answers place Fathom on the same material path: treat January 2, 2023 as the timeliness pivot, regard contract and fraud as timely on the present record, and obtain targeted evidence of report receipt before moving on professional-negligence limitations. Answer A’s range and calendar errors do not alter that conduct or the client’s position because it states the correct pivot and conditional recommendation.", "short_basis": "Both answers place Fathom on the same material path: treat January 2, 2023 as the timeliness pivot, regard contract and fraud as timely on the present record, and obtain targeted evidence of report receipt before moving on professional-negligence limitations.", "answer_a_was": "Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_b_was": "Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_a_display": "Qwen 3.5 27B", "answer_b_display": "Qwen 3.8 27B", "winner": "TIE", "verdict_code": "TIE", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-2/verdicts/q63__Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__vs__Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL.json" }, "deepseek-claude": { "key": "deepseek-claude", "label": "DeepSeek vs Claude", "first": "deepseek", "second": "claude", "status": "tie", "result": "Functional tie", "short_result": "Tie", "basis": "Both answers direct Fathom to preserve the defense, defer a limitations motion, and obtain targeted evidence establishing when Quarry Ridge received or learned the report’s findings. They reach the same deadline range, January 2, 2023 pivot date, and conclusions that the contract and fraud claims are timely on the present record.", "short_basis": "Both answers direct Fathom to preserve the defense, defer a limitations motion, and obtain targeted evidence establishing when Quarry Ridge received or learned the report’s findings.", "answer_a_was": "claude-opus-5", "answer_b_was": "DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS", "answer_a_display": "Claude Opus 5", "answer_b_display": "DeepSeek V4-Flash-0731", "winner": "TIE", "verdict_code": "TIE", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-2/verdicts/q63__DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS__vs__claude-opus-5.json" }, "deepseek-qwen35": { "key": "deepseek-qwen35", "label": "DeepSeek vs Qwen 3.5", "first": "deepseek", "second": "qwen35", "status": "tie", "result": "Functional tie", "short_result": "Tie", "basis": "Both answers direct Fathom to preserve the defense, obtain the report’s exact receipt date, and move against professional negligence only if receipt preceded January 2, 2023. Both treat the contract and fraud claims as timely on the present record, so their discrepancies do not change the client’s material course or outcome.", "short_basis": "Both answers direct Fathom to preserve the defense, obtain the report’s exact receipt date, and move against professional negligence only if receipt preceded January 2, 2023.", "answer_a_was": "DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS", "answer_b_was": "Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_a_display": "DeepSeek V4-Flash-0731", "answer_b_display": "Qwen 3.5 27B", "winner": "TIE", "verdict_code": "TIE", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-2/verdicts/q63__DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS__vs__Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL.json" }, "qwen35-claude": { "key": "qwen35-claude", "label": "Qwen 3.5 vs Claude", "first": "qwen35", "second": "claude", "status": "tie", "result": "Functional tie", "short_result": "Tie", "basis": "Both answers place Fathom on the same materially correct path: the September email does not trigger discovery, January 2, 2023 is the negligence pivot date, and Fathom should obtain the report-delivery date before moving. Both also correctly treat the contract claim and, on the present record, the fraud claim as timely.", "short_basis": "Both answers place Fathom on the same materially correct path: the September email does not trigger discovery, January 2, 2023 is the negligence pivot date, and Fathom should obtain the report-delivery date before moving.", "answer_a_was": "claude-opus-5", "answer_b_was": "Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_a_display": "Claude Opus 5", "answer_b_display": "Qwen 3.5 27B", "winner": "TIE", "verdict_code": "TIE", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-2/verdicts/q63__Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__vs__claude-opus-5.json" } }, "rejected_points": { "qwen38": 1, "deepseek": 0, "claude": 6, "qwen35": 11 }, "delivery_filter_matter": false }, { "qid": "q64", "number": 64, "series": "Series 2", "title": "The Claim Notice Hidden in the Broker File", "category": "Insurance coverage", "matter_page": "matters/q64/index.html", "question_file": "evidence/series-2/questions/q64.md", "key_file": "evidence/series-2/keys/q64.md", "answers": { "deepseek": "evidence/series-2/answers/DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS/DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS__q64_r1.md", "claude": "evidence/series-2/answers/claude-opus-5/claude-opus-5__q64_r1.md", "qwen35": "evidence/series-2/answers/Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL/Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__q64_r1.md", "qwen38": "evidence/series-2/answers/Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL/Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__q64_r1.md" }, "reasoning": { "deepseek": "evidence/series-2/answers/DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS/DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS__q64_r1.reasoning.md", "claude": "evidence/series-2/answers/claude-opus-5/claude-opus-5__q64_r1.reasoning.md", "qwen35": "evidence/series-2/answers/Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL/Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__q64_r1.reasoning.md", "qwen38": "evidence/series-2/answers/Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL/Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__q64_r1.reasoning.md" }, "pairings": { "qwen38-claude": { "key": "qwen38-claude", "label": "Qwen 3.8 vs Claude", "first": "qwen38", "second": "claude", "status": "tie", "result": "Functional tie", "short_result": "Tie", "basis": "Both answers direct Verdant to treat October 3 as the likely notice trigger, obtain Oakline’s transmission and agency records before committing to a coverage position, preserve and offer the physical evidence, and test whether the insurer probably would have accepted the expired demand. Both therefore place Verdant on the same materially safe path: targeted discovery and renewed tender before selecting coverage litigation, broker recovery, or settlement.", "short_basis": "Both answers direct Verdant to treat October 3 as the likely notice trigger, obtain Oakline’s transmission and agency records before committing to a coverage position, preserve and offer the physical evidence, and test whether the insurer probably would have accepted the expired demand.", "answer_a_was": "Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_b_was": "claude-opus-5", "answer_a_display": "Qwen 3.8 27B", "answer_b_display": "Claude Opus 5", "winner": "TIE", "verdict_code": "TIE", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-2/verdicts/q64__Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__vs__claude-opus-5.json" }, "qwen38-deepseek": { "key": "qwen38-deepseek", "label": "Qwen 3.8 vs DeepSeek", "first": "qwen38", "second": "deepseek", "status": "tie", "result": "Functional tie", "short_result": "Tie", "basis": "Both answers place Verdant on the same material path: no June trigger, a clear duty by October 3 at the latest, December 2 notice dependent on Oakline’s authority or actual transmission, weak investigative prejudice, and settlement prejudice requiring proof that the insurer probably would have pursued the expired demand. Both recommend preserving evidence and obtaining targeted broker, portal, agency, prior-notice, and insurer records before pursuing a merits judgment or funding settlement.", "short_basis": "Both answers place Verdant on the same material path: no June trigger, a clear duty by October 3 at the latest, December 2 notice dependent on Oakline’s authority or actual transmission, weak investigative prejudice, and settlement prejudice requiring proof that the insurer probably would have pursued the…", "answer_a_was": "DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS", "answer_b_was": "Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_a_display": "DeepSeek V4-Flash-0731", "answer_b_display": "Qwen 3.8 27B", "winner": "TIE", "verdict_code": "TIE", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-2/verdicts/q64__DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS__vs__Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL.json" }, "qwen38-qwen35": { "key": "qwen38-qwen35", "label": "Qwen 3.8 vs Qwen 3.5", "first": "qwen38", "second": "qwen35", "status": "tie", "result": "Functional tie", "short_result": "Tie", "basis": "Both answers place Verdant on the same material path: treat October 3 as the likely trigger, determine whether Oakline had notice authority or transmitted before the critical deadlines, challenge investigative prejudice using the preserved evidence, and require proof that the insurer probably would have accepted the $225,000 settlement. Both direct Verdant to preserve evidence, compel Oakline’s records, pursue coverage, and reserve a broker claim if Oakline failed to transmit.", "short_basis": "Both answers place Verdant on the same material path: treat October 3 as the likely trigger, determine whether Oakline had notice authority or transmitted before the critical deadlines, challenge investigative prejudice using the preserved evidence, and require proof that the insurer probably would have…", "answer_a_was": "Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_b_was": "Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_a_display": "Qwen 3.8 27B", "answer_b_display": "Qwen 3.5 27B", "winner": "TIE", "verdict_code": "TIE", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-2/verdicts/q64__Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__vs__Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL.json" }, "deepseek-claude": { "key": "deepseek-claude", "label": "DeepSeek vs Claude", "first": "deepseek", "second": "claude", "status": "tie", "result": "Functional tie", "short_result": "Tie", "basis": "Both answers place Verdant on the same material path: notice was not required in June, was required no later than October 3, and December 2 is effective only if Oakline transmitted notice or possessed insurer-authorized notice authority. Both recommend preserving evidence and broker claims, obtaining Oakline’s transmission and agency records before committing to coverage litigation, and contesting prejudice through the preserved samples and proof concerning whether the insurer probably would have pursued the expired demand.", "short_basis": "Both answers place Verdant on the same material path: notice was not required in June, was required no later than October 3, and December 2 is effective only if Oakline transmitted notice or possessed insurer-authorized notice authority.", "answer_a_was": "DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS", "answer_b_was": "claude-opus-5", "answer_a_display": "DeepSeek V4-Flash-0731", "answer_b_display": "Claude Opus 5", "winner": "TIE", "verdict_code": "TIE", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-2/verdicts/q64__DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS__vs__claude-opus-5.json" }, "deepseek-qwen35": { "key": "deepseek-qwen35", "label": "DeepSeek vs Qwen 3.5", "first": "deepseek", "second": "qwen35", "status": "tie", "result": "Functional tie", "short_result": "Tie", "basis": "Both answers put Verdant on the same material path: treat notice as required no later than October 3, obtain Oakline’s agency and transmission records, challenge both forms of prejudice, preserve the broker claim, and pursue coverage litigation if necessary. Their differences do not establish a concrete, record-supported change in coverage, settlement, or liability outcome.", "short_basis": "Both answers put Verdant on the same material path: treat notice as required no later than October 3, obtain Oakline’s agency and transmission records, challenge both forms of prejudice, preserve the broker claim, and pursue coverage litigation if necessary.", "answer_a_was": "DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS", "answer_b_was": "Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_a_display": "DeepSeek V4-Flash-0731", "answer_b_display": "Qwen 3.5 27B", "winner": "TIE", "verdict_code": "TIE", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-2/verdicts/q64__DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS__vs__Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL.json" }, "qwen35-claude": { "key": "qwen35-claude", "label": "Qwen 3.5 vs Claude", "first": "qwen35", "second": "claude", "status": "tie", "result": "Functional tie", "short_result": "Tie", "basis": "Both readers would treat October 3 as the notice trigger, obtain Oakline’s agency and transmission records, preserve the remaining evidence, contest investigative prejudice, investigate the expired settlement opportunity, pursue renewed settlement discussions, and challenge the denial while preserving a broker claim. Their differences in sequencing and detail do not establish a different concrete outcome for Verdant on this record.", "short_basis": "Both readers would treat October 3 as the notice trigger, obtain Oakline’s agency and transmission records, preserve the remaining evidence, contest investigative prejudice, investigate the expired settlement opportunity, pursue renewed settlement discussions, and challenge the denial while preserving a…", "answer_a_was": "Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_b_was": "claude-opus-5", "answer_a_display": "Qwen 3.5 27B", "answer_b_display": "Claude Opus 5", "winner": "TIE", "verdict_code": "TIE", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-2/verdicts/q64__Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__vs__claude-opus-5.json" } }, "rejected_points": { "qwen38": 2, "deepseek": 1, "claude": 12, "qwen35": 8 }, "delivery_filter_matter": false }, { "qid": "q65", "number": 65, "series": "Series 2", "title": "The Purchase Order, the Acknowledgment, and the Cap", "category": "Commercial contracts", "matter_page": "matters/q65/index.html", "question_file": "evidence/series-2/questions/q65.md", "key_file": "evidence/series-2/keys/q65.md", "answers": { "deepseek": "evidence/series-2/answers/DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS/DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS__q65_r1.md", "claude": "evidence/series-2/answers/claude-opus-5/claude-opus-5__q65_r1.md", "qwen35": "evidence/series-2/answers/Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL/Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__q65_r1.md", "qwen38": "evidence/series-2/answers/Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL/Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__q65_r1.md" }, "reasoning": { "deepseek": "evidence/series-2/answers/DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS/DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS__q65_r1.reasoning.md", "claude": "evidence/series-2/answers/claude-opus-5/claude-opus-5__q65_r1.reasoning.md", "qwen35": "evidence/series-2/answers/Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL/Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__q65_r1.reasoning.md", "qwen38": "evidence/series-2/answers/Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL/Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__q65_r1.reasoning.md" }, "pairings": { "qwen38-claude": { "key": "qwen38-claude", "label": "Qwen 3.8 vs Claude", "first": "qwen38", "second": "claude", "status": "tie", "result": "Functional tie", "short_result": "Tie", "basis": "Both answers lead AlloyWorks to the same material path: recognize the February 2 contract and February 3 modification, reject the affected-unit cap and consequential-damages exclusion, exclude the customer-specific lost profits, deduct mitigation, and apply the $3,000,000 cap to $3,200,000 in otherwise recoverable damages. Both therefore identify $3,000,000 as the maximum recovery and advise against relying on the $375,000 cap.", "short_basis": "Both answers lead AlloyWorks to the same material path: recognize the February 2 contract and February 3 modification, reject the affected-unit cap and consequential-damages exclusion, exclude the customer-specific lost profits, deduct mitigation, and apply the $3,000,000 cap to $3,200,000 in otherwise…", "answer_a_was": "claude-opus-5", "answer_b_was": "Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_a_display": "Claude Opus 5", "answer_b_display": "Qwen 3.8 27B", "winner": "TIE", "verdict_code": "TIE", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-2/verdicts/q65__Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__vs__claude-opus-5.json" }, "qwen38-deepseek": { "key": "qwen38-deepseek", "label": "Qwen 3.8 vs DeepSeek", "first": "qwen38", "second": "deepseek", "status": "tie", "result": "Functional tie", "short_result": "Tie", "basis": "Both answers lead AlloyWorks to the same material path: recognize the February 2 contract and February 3 modification, reject the affected-unit cap and invoice exclusion, exclude the customer-specific lost profits, calculate $3.2 million before the cap, and treat $3 million as the settlement and judgment ceiling. No demonstrated difference changes AlloyWorks’ legally supportable conduct or financial position.", "short_basis": "Both answers lead AlloyWorks to the same material path: recognize the February 2 contract and February 3 modification, reject the affected-unit cap and invoice exclusion, exclude the customer-specific lost profits, calculate $3.2 million before the cap, and treat $3 million as the settlement and judgment…", "answer_a_was": "Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_b_was": "DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS", "answer_a_display": "Qwen 3.8 27B", "answer_b_display": "DeepSeek V4-Flash-0731", "winner": "TIE", "verdict_code": "TIE", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-2/verdicts/q65__DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS__vs__Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL.json" }, "qwen38-qwen35": { "key": "qwen38-qwen35", "label": "Qwen 3.8 vs Qwen 3.5", "first": "qwen38", "second": "qwen35", "status": "tie", "result": "Functional tie", "short_result": "Tie", "basis": "Both answers place AlloyWorks on the same material path: recognize the February 3 modification, reject the affected-unit cap and invoice terms, calculate $3,200,000 in uncapped damages, and apply the $3,000,000 aggregate cap. Both support resisting Meridian’s $4,300,000 demand and treating $3,000,000 as the legal liability ceiling.", "short_basis": "Both answers place AlloyWorks on the same material path: recognize the February 3 modification, reject the affected-unit cap and invoice terms, calculate $3,200,000 in uncapped damages, and apply the $3,000,000 aggregate cap.", "answer_a_was": "Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_b_was": "Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_a_display": "Qwen 3.8 27B", "answer_b_display": "Qwen 3.5 27B", "winner": "TIE", "verdict_code": "TIE", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-2/verdicts/q65__Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__vs__Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL.json" }, "deepseek-claude": { "key": "deepseek-claude", "label": "DeepSeek vs Claude", "first": "deepseek", "second": "claude", "status": "tie", "result": "Functional tie", "short_result": "Tie", "basis": "Both answers place AlloyWorks on the same material path: the contract formed February 2, the February 3 modification established April 15 delivery and a $3,000,000 aggregate cap, and neither the affected-unit cap nor consequential-damages exclusion applies. Both calculate $3,200,000 uncapped recoverable damages and $3,000,000 capped exposure, while excluding the $1,100,000 renewal loss; their differing litigation and settlement suggestions do not establish a different client outcome.", "short_basis": "Both answers place AlloyWorks on the same material path: the contract formed February 2, the February 3 modification established April 15 delivery and a $3,000,000 aggregate cap, and neither the affected-unit cap nor consequential-damages exclusion applies.", "answer_a_was": "claude-opus-5", "answer_b_was": "DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS", "answer_a_display": "Claude Opus 5", "answer_b_display": "DeepSeek V4-Flash-0731", "winner": "TIE", "verdict_code": "TIE", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-2/verdicts/q65__DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS__vs__claude-opus-5.json" }, "deepseek-qwen35": { "key": "deepseek-qwen35", "label": "DeepSeek vs Qwen 3.5", "first": "deepseek", "second": "qwen35", "status": "tie", "result": "Functional tie", "short_result": "Tie", "basis": "Both answers lead AlloyWorks to the same material position: formation occurred February 2, the February 3 modification established April 15 delivery and a $3,000,000 aggregate cap, and the invoice terms are ineffective. Both calculate $3,200,000 in otherwise recoverable damages, exclude the $1,100,000 customer-renewal loss, apply mitigation before the cap, and limit liability to $3,000,000.", "short_basis": "Both answers lead AlloyWorks to the same material position: formation occurred February 2, the February 3 modification established April 15 delivery and a $3,000,000 aggregate cap, and the invoice terms are ineffective.", "answer_a_was": "Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_b_was": "DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS", "answer_a_display": "Qwen 3.5 27B", "answer_b_display": "DeepSeek V4-Flash-0731", "winner": "TIE", "verdict_code": "TIE", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-2/verdicts/q65__DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS__vs__Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL.json" }, "qwen35-claude": { "key": "qwen35-claude", "label": "Qwen 3.5 vs Claude", "first": "qwen35", "second": "claude", "status": "tie", "result": "Functional tie", "short_result": "Tie", "basis": "Both answers lead a competent reader to the same material position: the February 3 modification establishes April 15 delivery, permits recoverable downtime damages, and imposes a $3,000,000 aggregate cap; the invoice changes nothing. Both calculate $3,200,000 in uncapped recoverable damages, exclude the customer-specific $1,100,000, apply mitigation before the cap, reject AlloyWorks’ $375,000 theory, and reach capped liability of $3,000,000. Their divergent litigation and settlement suggestions lack a record-supported different outcome and are neutralized by the stipulated proof of damages.", "short_basis": "Both answers lead a competent reader to the same material position: the February 3 modification establishes April 15 delivery, permits recoverable downtime damages, and imposes a $3,000,000 aggregate cap; the invoice changes nothing.", "answer_a_was": "Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_b_was": "claude-opus-5", "answer_a_display": "Qwen 3.5 27B", "answer_b_display": "Claude Opus 5", "winner": "TIE", "verdict_code": "TIE", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-2/verdicts/q65__Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__vs__claude-opus-5.json" } }, "rejected_points": { "qwen38": 1, "deepseek": 0, "claude": 14, "qwen35": 4 }, "delivery_filter_matter": false }, { "qid": "q66", "number": 66, "series": "Series 2", "title": "The Settlement Offer and the Decision Tree", "category": "Settlement analysis", "matter_page": "matters/q66/index.html", "question_file": "evidence/series-2/questions/q66.md", "key_file": "evidence/series-2/keys/q66.md", "answers": { "deepseek": "evidence/series-2/answers/DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS/DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS__q66_r1.md", "claude": "evidence/series-2/answers/claude-opus-5/claude-opus-5__q66_r1.md", "qwen35": "evidence/series-2/answers/Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL/Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__q66_r1.md", "qwen38": "evidence/series-2/answers/Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL/Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__q66_r1.md" }, "reasoning": { "deepseek": "evidence/series-2/answers/DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS/DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS__q66_r1.reasoning.md", "claude": "evidence/series-2/answers/claude-opus-5/claude-opus-5__q66_r1.reasoning.md", "qwen35": "evidence/series-2/answers/Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL/Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__q66_r1.reasoning.md", "qwen38": "evidence/series-2/answers/Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL/Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__q66_r1.reasoning.md" }, "pairings": { "qwen38-claude": { "key": "qwen38-claude", "label": "Qwen 3.8 vs Claude", "first": "qwen38", "second": "claude", "status": "tie", "result": "Functional tie", "short_result": "Tie", "basis": "Both answers direct Emberline to accept the current offer before the deadline, based on the same correct expected costs: $1,500,000 for settlement, $1,858,750 for the counteroffer, and $2,250,000 for trial. After rejecting Answer A’s unsupported collateral statements, both readers remain on the same materially correct and safe path.", "short_basis": "Both answers direct Emberline to accept the current offer before the deadline, based on the same correct expected costs: $1,500,000 for settlement, $1,858,750 for the counteroffer, and $2,250,000 for trial.", "answer_a_was": "claude-opus-5", "answer_b_was": "Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_a_display": "Claude Opus 5", "answer_b_display": "Qwen 3.8 27B", "winner": "TIE", "verdict_code": "TIE", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-2/verdicts/q66__Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__vs__claude-opus-5.json" }, "qwen38-deepseek": { "key": "qwen38-deepseek", "label": "Qwen 3.8 vs DeepSeek", "first": "qwen38", "second": "deepseek", "status": "tie", "result": "Functional tie", "short_result": "Tie", "basis": "Both readers calculate the same expected costs—$1,500,000 for settlement, $1,858,750 for the counteroffer, and $2,250,000 for direct trial—and recommend accepting the current offer before the deadline. Both exclude the $300,000 sunk cost and appropriately account for the trial tail, so the client follows the same materially correct path.", "short_basis": "Both readers calculate the same expected costs—$1,500,000 for settlement, $1,858,750 for the counteroffer, and $2,250,000 for direct trial—and recommend accepting the current offer before the deadline.", "answer_a_was": "DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS", "answer_b_was": "Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_a_display": "DeepSeek V4-Flash-0731", "answer_b_display": "Qwen 3.8 27B", "winner": "TIE", "verdict_code": "TIE", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-2/verdicts/q66__DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS__vs__Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL.json" }, "qwen38-qwen35": { "key": "qwen38-qwen35", "label": "Qwen 3.8 vs Qwen 3.5", "first": "qwen38", "second": "qwen35", "status": "tie", "result": "Functional tie", "short_result": "Tie", "basis": "Both readers would accept the current settlement before the deadline because its $1,500,000 cost is lower than the counteroffer’s $1,858,750 expected cost and direct trial’s $2,250,000 expected cost. Both exclude the $300,000 sunk cost and recognize the trial tail without allowing it to replace the expected-cost rule.", "short_basis": "Both readers would accept the current settlement before the deadline because its $1,500,000 cost is lower than the counteroffer’s $1,858,750 expected cost and direct trial’s $2,250,000 expected cost.", "answer_a_was": "Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_b_was": "Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_a_display": "Qwen 3.8 27B", "answer_b_display": "Qwen 3.5 27B", "winner": "TIE", "verdict_code": "TIE", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-2/verdicts/q66__Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__vs__Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL.json" }, "deepseek-claude": { "key": "deepseek-claude", "label": "DeepSeek vs Claude", "first": "deepseek", "second": "claude", "status": "tie", "result": "Functional tie", "short_result": "Tie", "basis": "Both answers correctly calculate the relevant costs and direct Emberline to accept the $1,450,000 offer plus $50,000 transaction cost before the deadline. Ordinary verification rejects Answer B’s unsupported operational additions and inaccurate characterization of conditional expected cost as variance, leaving both readers on the same materially correct and safe path.", "short_basis": "Both answers correctly calculate the relevant costs and direct Emberline to accept the $1,450,000 offer plus $50,000 transaction cost before the deadline. Ordinary verification rejects Answer B’s unsupported operational additions and inaccurate characterization of conditional expected cost as variance…", "answer_a_was": "DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS", "answer_b_was": "claude-opus-5", "answer_a_display": "DeepSeek V4-Flash-0731", "answer_b_display": "Claude Opus 5", "winner": "TIE", "verdict_code": "TIE", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-2/verdicts/q66__DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS__vs__claude-opus-5.json" }, "deepseek-qwen35": { "key": "deepseek-qwen35", "label": "DeepSeek vs Qwen 3.5", "first": "deepseek", "second": "qwen35", "status": "tie", "result": "Functional tie", "short_result": "Tie", "basis": "Both answers calculate the same expected costs: $2,250,000 for direct trial, $1,500,000 for settlement, and $1,858,750 for the counteroffer. Both direct Emberline to accept the current settlement before the deadline, producing the same materially correct and safe result.", "short_basis": "Both answers calculate the same expected costs: $2,250,000 for direct trial, $1,500,000 for settlement, and $1,858,750 for the counteroffer. Both direct Emberline to accept the current settlement before the deadline, producing the same materially correct and safe result.", "answer_a_was": "Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_b_was": "DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS", "answer_a_display": "Qwen 3.5 27B", "answer_b_display": "DeepSeek V4-Flash-0731", "winner": "TIE", "verdict_code": "TIE", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-2/verdicts/q66__DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS__vs__Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL.json" }, "qwen35-claude": { "key": "qwen35-claude", "label": "Qwen 3.5 vs Claude", "first": "qwen35", "second": "claude", "status": "tie", "result": "Functional tie", "short_result": "Tie", "basis": "Both answers calculate the same expected costs—$2,250,000 for direct trial, $1,500,000 for settlement, and $1,858,750 for the counteroffer—and recommend accepting the current offer before expiration. After ordinary verification rejects the unsupported or contradictory embellishments, both readers remain on the same materially correct and safe path.", "short_basis": "Both answers calculate the same expected costs—$2,250,000 for direct trial, $1,500,000 for settlement, and $1,858,750 for the counteroffer—and recommend accepting the current offer before expiration.", "answer_a_was": "Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_b_was": "claude-opus-5", "answer_a_display": "Qwen 3.5 27B", "answer_b_display": "Claude Opus 5", "winner": "TIE", "verdict_code": "TIE", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-2/verdicts/q66__Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__vs__claude-opus-5.json" } }, "rejected_points": { "qwen38": 0, "deepseek": 0, "claude": 11, "qwen35": 4 }, "delivery_filter_matter": false }, { "qid": "q67", "number": 67, "series": "Series 2", "title": "The Spinal-Infection Intake", "category": "Medical malpractice", "matter_page": "matters/q67/index.html", "question_file": "evidence/series-2/questions/q67.md", "key_file": "evidence/series-2/keys/q67.md", "answers": { "deepseek": "evidence/series-2/answers/DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS/DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS__q67_r1.md", "claude": "evidence/series-2/answers/claude-opus-5/claude-opus-5__q67_r1.md", "qwen35": "evidence/series-2/answers/Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL/Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__q67_r1.md", "qwen38": "evidence/series-2/answers/Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL/Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__q67_r1.md" }, "reasoning": { "deepseek": "evidence/series-2/answers/DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS/DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS__q67_r1.reasoning.md", "claude": "evidence/series-2/answers/claude-opus-5/claude-opus-5__q67_r1.reasoning.md", "qwen35": "evidence/series-2/answers/Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL/Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__q67_r1.reasoning.md", "qwen38": "evidence/series-2/answers/Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL/Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__q67_r1.reasoning.md" }, "pairings": { "qwen38-claude": { "key": "qwen38-claude", "label": "Qwen 3.8 vs Claude", "first": "qwen38", "second": "claude", "status": "tie", "result": "Functional tie", "short_result": "Tie", "basis": "Both answers direct the firm to accept, retain both experts, obtain certificates within 20 days, and file at least 30 days before limitations expires. They reach the same liability conclusions and identical economic results, including the firm’s $185,333 expected net return. The additional investigations and controls proposed by Answer B do not produce a concrete, record-supported difference in Lena’s outcome.", "short_basis": "Both answers direct the firm to accept, retain both experts, obtain certificates within 20 days, and file at least 30 days before limitations expires. They reach the same liability conclusions and identical economic results, including the firm’s $185,333 expected net return.", "answer_a_was": "Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_b_was": "claude-opus-5", "answer_a_display": "Qwen 3.8 27B", "answer_b_display": "Claude Opus 5", "winner": "TIE", "verdict_code": "TIE", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-2/verdicts/q67__Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__vs__claude-opus-5.json" }, "qwen38-deepseek": { "key": "qwen38-deepseek", "label": "Qwen 3.8 vs DeepSeek", "first": "qwen38", "second": "deepseek", "status": "tie", "result": "Functional tie", "short_result": "Tie", "basis": "Both answers support breach and causation, calculate the same recoveries and expected net return, conclude that the $175,000 threshold is met, and direct the firm to accept, retain both experts, obtain certificates, and file before Day 80. Their additional details and differing timetable cushions do not change the client’s legal, financial, or procedural position.", "short_basis": "Both answers support breach and causation, calculate the same recoveries and expected net return, conclude that the $175,000 threshold is met, and direct the firm to accept, retain both experts, obtain certificates, and file before Day 80.", "answer_a_was": "DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS", "answer_b_was": "Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_a_display": "DeepSeek V4-Flash-0731", "answer_b_display": "Qwen 3.8 27B", "winner": "TIE", "verdict_code": "TIE", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-2/verdicts/q67__DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS__vs__Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL.json" }, "qwen38-qwen35": { "key": "qwen38-qwen35", "label": "Qwen 3.8 vs Qwen 3.5", "first": "qwen38", "second": "qwen35", "status": "tie", "result": "Functional tie", "short_result": "Tie", "basis": "Both readers would accept the case, retain both experts immediately, obtain certificates within 20 days, and file no later than Day 80. Both correctly determine that liability has preliminary expert support, Lena’s expected net recovery is approximately $498,667, and the firm’s $185,333 expected net return exceeds its intake threshold.", "short_basis": "Both readers would accept the case, retain both experts immediately, obtain certificates within 20 days, and file no later than Day 80. Both correctly determine that liability has preliminary expert support, Lena’s expected net recovery is approximately $498,667, and the firm’s $185,333 expected net return…", "answer_a_was": "Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_b_was": "Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_a_display": "Qwen 3.5 27B", "answer_b_display": "Qwen 3.8 27B", "winner": "TIE", "verdict_code": "TIE", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-2/verdicts/q67__Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__vs__Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL.json" }, "deepseek-claude": { "key": "deepseek-claude", "label": "DeepSeek vs Claude", "first": "deepseek", "second": "claude", "status": "tie", "result": "Functional tie", "short_result": "Tie", "basis": "Both answers direct the firm to accept, retain both experts, obtain certificates, and file safely before day 80. They reach the same liability assessment, recoveries, expected $185,333 firm return, and materially safe filing path; Answer A’s additional cautions do not establish a record-supported different outcome.", "short_basis": "Both answers direct the firm to accept, retain both experts, obtain certificates, and file safely before day 80. They reach the same liability assessment, recoveries, expected $185,333 firm return, and materially safe filing path; Answer A’s additional cautions do not establish a record-supported different…", "answer_a_was": "claude-opus-5", "answer_b_was": "DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS", "answer_a_display": "Claude Opus 5", "answer_b_display": "DeepSeek V4-Flash-0731", "winner": "TIE", "verdict_code": "TIE", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-2/verdicts/q67__DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS__vs__claude-opus-5.json" }, "deepseek-qwen35": { "key": "deepseek-qwen35", "label": "DeepSeek vs Qwen 3.5", "first": "deepseek", "second": "qwen35", "status": "tie", "result": "Functional tie", "short_result": "Tie", "basis": "Both answers recommend acceptance, calculate the same recoveries and $185,333 expected net return, and direct immediate expert retention followed by certificate-supported filing before day 80. Both therefore place Lena and the firm on the same materially correct, safe legal, financial, and procedural path.", "short_basis": "Both answers recommend acceptance, calculate the same recoveries and $185,333 expected net return, and direct immediate expert retention followed by certificate-supported filing before day 80. Both therefore place Lena and the firm on the same materially correct, safe legal, financial, and procedural path.", "answer_a_was": "DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS", "answer_b_was": "Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_a_display": "DeepSeek V4-Flash-0731", "answer_b_display": "Qwen 3.5 27B", "winner": "TIE", "verdict_code": "TIE", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-2/verdicts/q67__DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS__vs__Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL.json" }, "qwen35-claude": { "key": "qwen35-claude", "label": "Qwen 3.5 vs Claude", "first": "qwen35", "second": "claude", "status": "tie", "result": "Functional tie", "short_result": "Tie", "basis": "Both answers direct the firm to accept, retain both experts immediately, obtain the necessary records, secure certificates by Day 20, and file before the Day-80 policy deadline. They calculate the same recoveries and $185,333 expected net return. The additional precautions in Answer A do not establish a different client outcome on the supplied record.", "short_basis": "Both answers direct the firm to accept, retain both experts immediately, obtain the necessary records, secure certificates by Day 20, and file before the Day-80 policy deadline. They calculate the same recoveries and $185,333 expected net return.", "answer_a_was": "claude-opus-5", "answer_b_was": "Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_a_display": "Claude Opus 5", "answer_b_display": "Qwen 3.5 27B", "winner": "TIE", "verdict_code": "TIE", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-2/verdicts/q67__Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__vs__claude-opus-5.json" } }, "rejected_points": { "qwen38": 0, "deepseek": 0, "claude": 7, "qwen35": 3 }, "delivery_filter_matter": false }, { "qid": "q68", "number": 68, "series": "Series 2", "title": "The Damages Report That Counts the Same Loss Twice", "category": "Expert damages", "matter_page": "matters/q68/index.html", "question_file": "evidence/series-2/questions/q68.md", "key_file": "evidence/series-2/keys/q68.md", "answers": { "deepseek": "evidence/series-2/answers/DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS/DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS__q68_r1.md", "claude": "evidence/series-2/answers/claude-opus-5/claude-opus-5__q68_r1.md", "qwen35": "evidence/series-2/answers/Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL/Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__q68_r1.md", "qwen38": "evidence/series-2/answers/Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL/Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__q68_r1.md" }, "reasoning": { "deepseek": "evidence/series-2/answers/DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS/DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS__q68_r1.reasoning.md", "claude": "evidence/series-2/answers/claude-opus-5/claude-opus-5__q68_r1.reasoning.md", "qwen35": "evidence/series-2/answers/Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL/Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__q68_r1.reasoning.md", "qwen38": "evidence/series-2/answers/Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL/Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__q68_r1.reasoning.md" }, "pairings": { "qwen38-claude": { "key": "qwen38-claude", "label": "Qwen 3.8 vs Claude", "first": "qwen38", "second": "claude", "status": "tie", "result": "Functional tie", "short_result": "Tie", "basis": "Both answers direct Granite Arc to the same corrected damages range, identify the same nonduplicative components and interest calculation, demand substantially the same material workpapers, and pursue supplementation followed by a targeted limitation motion if disclosure remains deficient. Their differences in ancillary requests, fallback presentation, and scheduling detail do not demonstrate a materially different litigation or client outcome.", "short_basis": "Both answers direct Granite Arc to the same corrected damages range, identify the same nonduplicative components and interest calculation, demand substantially the same material workpapers, and pursue supplementation followed by a targeted limitation motion if disclosure remains deficient.", "answer_a_was": "claude-opus-5", "answer_b_was": "Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_a_display": "Claude Opus 5", "answer_b_display": "Qwen 3.8 27B", "winner": "TIE", "verdict_code": "TIE", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-2/verdicts/q68__Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__vs__claude-opus-5.json" }, "qwen38-deepseek": { "key": "qwen38-deepseek", "label": "Qwen 3.8 vs DeepSeek", "first": "qwen38", "second": "deepseek", "status": "tie", "result": "Functional tie", "short_result": "Tie", "basis": "Both answers direct Granite Arc to the same corrected range, identify the same overstatements and duplications, demand substantially the same native workpapers, and recommend immediate supplementation followed by limitation or exclusion if reliable testing remains impossible. Their differences do not establish any different material litigation outcome within the ten-day period.", "short_basis": "Both answers direct Granite Arc to the same corrected range, identify the same overstatements and duplications, demand substantially the same native workpapers, and recommend immediate supplementation followed by limitation or exclusion if reliable testing remains impossible.", "answer_a_was": "Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_b_was": "DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS", "answer_a_display": "Qwen 3.8 27B", "answer_b_display": "DeepSeek V4-Flash-0731", "winner": "TIE", "verdict_code": "TIE", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-2/verdicts/q68__DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS__vs__Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL.json" }, "qwen38-qwen35": { "key": "qwen38-qwen35", "label": "Qwen 3.8 vs Qwen 3.5", "first": "qwen38", "second": "qwen35", "status": "local", "result": "Qwen 3.8 win", "short_result": "Qwen 3.8 win", "basis": "Answer A’s targeted demand omits the expressly unproduced customer-level lost-revenue schedules, while Answer B demands them to test the $8.4 million revenue foundation. Without those schedules, Granite Arc cannot reliably test or seek limitation of the $3.36 million corrected lost-profit claim; obtaining them preserves a supported challenge before the expert deadline.", "short_basis": "Answer A’s targeted demand omits the expressly unproduced customer-level lost-revenue schedules, while Answer B demands them to test the $8.4 million revenue foundation. Without those schedules, Granite Arc cannot reliably test or seek limitation of the $3.36 million corrected lost-profit claim; obtaining…", "answer_a_was": "Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_b_was": "Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_a_display": "Qwen 3.5 27B", "answer_b_display": "Qwen 3.8 27B", "winner": "Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "verdict_code": "B", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-2/verdicts/q68__Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__vs__Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL.json" }, "deepseek-claude": { "key": "deepseek-claude", "label": "DeepSeek vs Claude", "first": "deepseek", "second": "claude", "status": "tie", "result": "Functional tie", "short_result": "Tie", "basis": "Both answers direct Granite Arc to the same corrected damages range, identify the same duplications and interest correction, demand the material native workpapers, and pursue supplementation followed by limitation or exclusion if testing remains impossible. Their additional procedural and explanatory differences do not establish a concrete change in Granite Arc’s litigation position or outcome.", "short_basis": "Both answers direct Granite Arc to the same corrected damages range, identify the same duplications and interest correction, demand the material native workpapers, and pursue supplementation followed by limitation or exclusion if testing remains impossible.", "answer_a_was": "DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS", "answer_b_was": "claude-opus-5", "answer_a_display": "DeepSeek V4-Flash-0731", "answer_b_display": "Claude Opus 5", "winner": "TIE", "verdict_code": "TIE", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-2/verdicts/q68__DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS__vs__claude-opus-5.json" }, "deepseek-qwen35": { "key": "deepseek-qwen35", "label": "DeepSeek vs Qwen 3.5", "first": "deepseek", "second": "qwen35", "status": "local", "result": "DeepSeek win", "short_result": "DeepSeek win", "basis": "Answer A directs Granite Arc to demand the missing customer-level lost-revenue schedules; Answer B’s purportedly complete demand omits them. Following Answer B would leave the foundational $8.4 million revenue figure, causation, and historical/future-loss overlap untested when the workpaper deadline expires, materially weakening Granite Arc’s evidentiary basis to limit the opinion.", "short_basis": "Answer A directs Granite Arc to demand the missing customer-level lost-revenue schedules; Answer B’s purportedly complete demand omits them. Following Answer B would leave the foundational $8.4 million revenue figure, causation, and historical/future-loss overlap untested when the workpaper deadline…", "answer_a_was": "DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS", "answer_b_was": "Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_a_display": "DeepSeek V4-Flash-0731", "answer_b_display": "Qwen 3.5 27B", "winner": "DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS", "verdict_code": "A", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-2/verdicts/q68__DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS__vs__Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL.json" }, "qwen35-claude": { "key": "qwen35-claude", "label": "Qwen 3.5 vs Claude", "first": "qwen35", "second": "claude", "status": "frontier", "result": "Claude win", "short_result": "Claude win", "basis": "Answer A omits the customer-level lost-revenue schedules from its targeted workpaper demand, while Answer B demands them before the deadline to test the $8.4 million revenue premise, causation, recapture, and overlap with attrition. That difference materially preserves Granite Arc’s ability to test or seek limitation of the foundational revenue opinion rather than allowing the expert deadline to pass with that input untested.", "short_basis": "Answer A omits the customer-level lost-revenue schedules from its targeted workpaper demand, while Answer B demands them before the deadline to test the $8.4 million revenue premise, causation, recapture, and overlap with attrition.", "answer_a_was": "Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_b_was": "claude-opus-5", "answer_a_display": "Qwen 3.5 27B", "answer_b_display": "Claude Opus 5", "winner": "claude-opus-5", "verdict_code": "B", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-2/verdicts/q68__Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__vs__claude-opus-5.json" } }, "rejected_points": { "qwen38": 0, "deepseek": 2, "claude": 4, "qwen35": 3 }, "delivery_filter_matter": false }, { "qid": "q69", "number": 69, "series": "Series 2", "title": "The Founder Supply-Deal Opinion", "category": "Corporate authority", "matter_page": "matters/q69/index.html", "question_file": "evidence/series-2/questions/q69.md", "key_file": "evidence/series-2/keys/q69.md", "answers": { "deepseek": "evidence/series-2/answers/DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS/DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS__q69_r1.md", "claude": "evidence/series-2/answers/claude-opus-5/claude-opus-5__q69_r1.md", "qwen35": "evidence/series-2/answers/Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL/Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__q69_r1.md", "qwen38": "evidence/series-2/answers/Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL/Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__q69_r1.md" }, "reasoning": { "deepseek": "evidence/series-2/answers/DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS/DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS__q69_r1.reasoning.md", "claude": "evidence/series-2/answers/claude-opus-5/claude-opus-5__q69_r1.reasoning.md", "qwen35": "evidence/series-2/answers/Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL/Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__q69_r1.reasoning.md", "qwen38": "evidence/series-2/answers/Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL/Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__q69_r1.reasoning.md" }, "pairings": { "qwen38-claude": { "key": "qwen38-claude", "label": "Qwen 3.8 vs Claude", "first": "qwen38", "second": "claude", "status": "tie", "result": "Functional tie", "short_result": "Tie", "basis": "Both answers direct counsel to treat the original approval as outside the safe harbor, halt performance, investigate the bonus, Colin’s loan, and Meridian’s independence, and submit the transaction to a fully informed independent committee before performance. Both also correctly reject the predecessor’s shareholder-approval and exculpation conclusions and recommend approval of a cured transaction or termination or renegotiation; no difference establishes a materially different client outcome.", "short_basis": "Both answers direct counsel to treat the original approval as outside the safe harbor, halt performance, investigate the bonus, Colin’s loan, and Meridian’s independence, and submit the transaction to a fully informed independent committee before performance.", "answer_a_was": "claude-opus-5", "answer_b_was": "Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_a_display": "Claude Opus 5", "answer_b_display": "Qwen 3.8 27B", "winner": "TIE", "verdict_code": "TIE", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-2/verdicts/q69__Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__vs__claude-opus-5.json" }, "qwen38-deepseek": { "key": "qwen38-deepseek", "label": "Qwen 3.8 vs DeepSeek", "first": "qwen38", "second": "deepseek", "status": "tie", "result": "Functional tie", "short_result": "Tie", "basis": "Both answers place Willowmere on the same material path: treat the safe harbor as unavailable, halt performance, exclude conflicted or uncleared directors, investigate the bonus, loan, and Meridian file, and obtain fully informed independent-committee review before shipment or payment. No record-supported difference shows that a competent professional receiving one answer would take materially different action or produce a different outcome for Willowmere.", "short_basis": "Both answers place Willowmere on the same material path: treat the safe harbor as unavailable, halt performance, exclude conflicted or uncleared directors, investigate the bonus, loan, and Meridian file, and obtain fully informed independent-committee review before shipment or payment.", "answer_a_was": "DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS", "answer_b_was": "Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_a_display": "DeepSeek V4-Flash-0731", "answer_b_display": "Qwen 3.8 27B", "winner": "TIE", "verdict_code": "TIE", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-2/verdicts/q69__DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS__vs__Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL.json" }, "qwen38-qwen35": { "key": "qwen38-qwen35", "label": "Qwen 3.8 vs Qwen 3.5", "first": "qwen38", "second": "qwen35", "status": "tie", "result": "Functional tie", "short_result": "Tie", "basis": "Both answers conclude that quorum existed but statutory safe-harbor approval did not, require an immediate performance pause, exclude conflicted or unresolved directors, investigate the bonus, loan, and Meridian file, and submit a fully disclosed transaction to an independent committee before performance. Their differences do not alter that materially correct and safe path.", "short_basis": "Both answers conclude that quorum existed but statutory safe-harbor approval did not, require an immediate performance pause, exclude conflicted or unresolved directors, investigate the bonus, loan, and Meridian file, and submit a fully disclosed transaction to an independent committee before performance.", "answer_a_was": "Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_b_was": "Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_a_display": "Qwen 3.8 27B", "answer_b_display": "Qwen 3.5 27B", "winner": "TIE", "verdict_code": "TIE", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-2/verdicts/q69__Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__vs__Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL.json" }, "deepseek-claude": { "key": "deepseek-claude", "label": "DeepSeek vs Claude", "first": "deepseek", "second": "claude", "status": "tie", "result": "Functional tie", "short_result": "Tie", "basis": "Both answers direct Willowmere to treat the original vote as lacking valid disinterested approval, halt performance, investigate the bonus, loan, and Meridian materials, and submit the transaction to a fully informed independent committee before shipment or payment. Both also correctly reject the asserted shareholder-vote requirement, conclusive effect of the fairness letter, and exculpation against equitable or loyalty remedies. Their differences do not establish a materially different client outcome.", "short_basis": "Both answers direct Willowmere to treat the original vote as lacking valid disinterested approval, halt performance, investigate the bonus, loan, and Meridian materials, and submit the transaction to a fully informed independent committee before shipment or payment.", "answer_a_was": "DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS", "answer_b_was": "claude-opus-5", "answer_a_display": "DeepSeek V4-Flash-0731", "answer_b_display": "Claude Opus 5", "winner": "TIE", "verdict_code": "TIE", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-2/verdicts/q69__DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS__vs__claude-opus-5.json" }, "deepseek-qwen35": { "key": "deepseek-qwen35", "label": "DeepSeek vs Qwen 3.5", "first": "deepseek", "second": "qwen35", "status": "tie", "result": "Functional tie", "short_result": "Tie", "basis": "Both answers conclude that the safe harbor was not obtained because the required disinterested, independent majority did not approve after full disclosure, and both direct Willowmere to pause performance, investigate the conflicts and missing Meridian materials, and use an independent committee before proceeding. They also reach the same material conclusions on shareholder approval, exculpation, and the limitations of ratification. No demonstrated difference would put Willowmere on a materially different legal or operational path.", "short_basis": "Both answers conclude that the safe harbor was not obtained because the required disinterested, independent majority did not approve after full disclosure, and both direct Willowmere to pause performance, investigate the conflicts and missing Meridian materials, and use an independent committee before…", "answer_a_was": "DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS", "answer_b_was": "Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_a_display": "DeepSeek V4-Flash-0731", "answer_b_display": "Qwen 3.5 27B", "winner": "TIE", "verdict_code": "TIE", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-2/verdicts/q69__DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS__vs__Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL.json" }, "qwen35-claude": { "key": "qwen35-claude", "label": "Qwen 3.5 vs Claude", "first": "qwen35", "second": "claude", "status": "tie", "result": "Functional tie", "short_result": "Tie", "basis": "Both readers conclude that quorum existed, no valid disinterested approval or safe harbor occurred, shareholder approval is not required on the supplied facts, exculpation does not bar equitable or loyalty remedies, and Meridian’s letter cannot cleanse the transaction. Both would halt performance, exclude Mara and Leon, investigate Colin and Meridian, address the undisclosed bonus, and submit the transaction to a fully informed independent committee before shipment or payment.", "short_basis": "Both readers conclude that quorum existed, no valid disinterested approval or safe harbor occurred, shareholder approval is not required on the supplied facts, exculpation does not bar equitable or loyalty remedies, and Meridian’s letter cannot cleanse the transaction.", "answer_a_was": "Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_b_was": "claude-opus-5", "answer_a_display": "Qwen 3.5 27B", "answer_b_display": "Claude Opus 5", "winner": "TIE", "verdict_code": "TIE", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-2/verdicts/q69__Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__vs__claude-opus-5.json" } }, "rejected_points": { "qwen38": 3, "deepseek": 4, "claude": 9, "qwen35": 9 }, "delivery_filter_matter": false }, { "qid": "q70", "number": 70, "series": "Series 2", "title": "The Ruling Letter to Rosa", "category": "Client communication", "matter_page": "matters/q70/index.html", "question_file": "evidence/series-2/questions/q70.md", "key_file": "evidence/series-2/keys/q70.md", "answers": { "deepseek": "evidence/series-2/answers/DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS/DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS__q70_r1.md", "claude": "evidence/series-2/answers/claude-opus-5/claude-opus-5__q70_r1.md", "qwen35": "evidence/series-2/answers/Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL/Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__q70_r1.md", "qwen38": "evidence/series-2/answers/Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL/Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__q70_r1.md" }, "reasoning": { "deepseek": "evidence/series-2/answers/DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS/DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS__q70_r1.reasoning.md", "qwen35": "evidence/series-2/answers/Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL/Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__q70_r1.reasoning.md", "qwen38": "evidence/series-2/answers/Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL/Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__q70_r1.reasoning.md" }, "pairings": { "qwen38-claude": { "key": "qwen38-claude", "label": "Qwen 3.8 vs Claude", "first": "qwen38", "second": "claude", "status": "tie", "result": "Functional tie", "short_result": "Tie", "basis": "Both answers tell Rosa that collision liability is resolved but surgery causation and damages remain disputed, and both direct her to preserve evidence, meet the records deadline, attend the examination, and evaluate the same cost-shifting offer after receiving the surgeon’s report. Their readers therefore follow the same materially correct and safe path through settlement evaluation and trial preparation.", "short_basis": "Both answers tell Rosa that collision liability is resolved but surgery causation and damages remain disputed, and both direct her to preserve evidence, meet the records deadline, attend the examination, and evaluate the same cost-shifting offer after receiving the surgeon’s report.", "answer_a_was": "claude-opus-5", "answer_b_was": "Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_a_display": "Claude Opus 5", "answer_b_display": "Qwen 3.8 27B", "winner": "TIE", "verdict_code": "TIE", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-2/verdicts/q70__Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__vs__claude-opus-5.json" }, "qwen38-deepseek": { "key": "qwen38-deepseek", "label": "Qwen 3.8 vs DeepSeek", "first": "qwen38", "second": "deepseek", "status": "tie", "result": "Functional tie", "short_result": "Tie", "basis": "Both answers place Rosa on the same material path: sign the authorization immediately, attend the examination, preserve evidence, review the causation report on September 15, and evaluate the $210,000 offer before September 18 while preparing for the listed court dates. Ordinary verification corrects Answer A’s softened wording about mandatory cost shifting and record exclusion without changing any instructed action or leaving Rosa unable to act safely.", "short_basis": "Both answers place Rosa on the same material path: sign the authorization immediately, attend the examination, preserve evidence, review the causation report on September 15, and evaluate the $210,000 offer before September 18 while preparing for the listed court dates.", "answer_a_was": "DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS", "answer_b_was": "Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_a_display": "DeepSeek V4-Flash-0731", "answer_b_display": "Qwen 3.8 27B", "winner": "TIE", "verdict_code": "TIE", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-2/verdicts/q70__DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS__vs__Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL.json" }, "qwen38-qwen35": { "key": "qwen38-qwen35", "label": "Qwen 3.8 vs Qwen 3.5", "first": "qwen38", "second": "qwen35", "status": "tie", "result": "Functional tie", "short_result": "Tie", "basis": "Both letters put Rosa on the same materially correct and safe path: sign the authorization immediately, attend the September 10 examination, preserve relevant content, review the causation report on September 15, and evaluate the $210,000 offer with accurate cost-shifting information. Their wording differences do not produce different conduct or a concrete different outcome.", "short_basis": "Both letters put Rosa on the same materially correct and safe path: sign the authorization immediately, attend the September 10 examination, preserve relevant content, review the causation report on September 15, and evaluate the $210,000 offer with accurate cost-shifting information.", "answer_a_was": "Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_b_was": "Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_a_display": "Qwen 3.8 27B", "answer_b_display": "Qwen 3.5 27B", "winner": "TIE", "verdict_code": "TIE", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-2/verdicts/q70__Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__vs__Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL.json" }, "deepseek-claude": { "key": "deepseek-claude", "label": "DeepSeek vs Claude", "first": "deepseek", "second": "claude", "status": "tie", "result": "Functional tie", "short_result": "Tie", "basis": "Both letters put Rosa on the same materially correct path: sign the authorization immediately, preserve all content, attend the September 10 examination, review the surgeon’s report on September 15, and evaluate the $210,000 offer with the stated cost risk before September 18. No demonstrated difference changes a deadline, decision, evidentiary position, or likely outcome.", "short_basis": "Both letters put Rosa on the same materially correct path: sign the authorization immediately, preserve all content, attend the September 10 examination, review the surgeon’s report on September 15, and evaluate the $210,000 offer with the stated cost risk before September 18.", "answer_a_was": "DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS", "answer_b_was": "claude-opus-5", "answer_a_display": "DeepSeek V4-Flash-0731", "answer_b_display": "Claude Opus 5", "winner": "TIE", "verdict_code": "TIE", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-2/verdicts/q70__DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS__vs__claude-opus-5.json" }, "deepseek-qwen35": { "key": "deepseek-qwen35", "label": "DeepSeek vs Qwen 3.5", "first": "deepseek", "second": "qwen35", "status": "tie", "result": "Functional tie", "short_result": "Tie", "basis": "Both letters put Rosa on the same materially correct and safe path: sign the authorization immediately, attend and cooperate with the September 10 examination, preserve social-media evidence, review the causation report on September 15, and evaluate the $210,000 offer before September 18 with the stated cost risk. Their differences do not establish materially different conduct or consequences.", "short_basis": "Both letters put Rosa on the same materially correct and safe path: sign the authorization immediately, attend and cooperate with the September 10 examination, preserve social-media evidence, review the causation report on September 15, and evaluate the $210,000 offer before September 18 with the stated…", "answer_a_was": "Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_b_was": "DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS", "answer_a_display": "Qwen 3.5 27B", "answer_b_display": "DeepSeek V4-Flash-0731", "winner": "TIE", "verdict_code": "TIE", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-2/verdicts/q70__DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS__vs__Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL.json" }, "qwen35-claude": { "key": "qwen35-claude", "label": "Qwen 3.5 vs Claude", "first": "qwen35", "second": "claude", "status": "tie", "result": "Functional tie", "short_result": "Tie", "basis": "Both letters put Rosa on the same materially correct path: sign the authorization immediately, preserve social-media evidence, attend and cooperate at the September 10 examination, review the September 12 report on September 15, and evaluate the $210,000 offer with the stated cost risk before September 18. Their differences do not establish any different action or concrete client consequence.", "short_basis": "Both letters put Rosa on the same materially correct path: sign the authorization immediately, preserve social-media evidence, attend and cooperate at the September 10 examination, review the September 12 report on September 15, and evaluate the $210,000 offer with the stated cost risk before September 18.", "answer_a_was": "claude-opus-5", "answer_b_was": "Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_a_display": "Claude Opus 5", "answer_b_display": "Qwen 3.5 27B", "winner": "TIE", "verdict_code": "TIE", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-2/verdicts/q70__Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__vs__claude-opus-5.json" } }, "rejected_points": { "qwen38": 0, "deepseek": 4, "claude": 8, "qwen35": 2 }, "delivery_filter_matter": false }, { "qid": "q71", "number": 71, "series": "Series 2", "title": "The Safety-Reporting Consent Order", "category": "Regulatory compliance", "matter_page": "matters/q71/index.html", "question_file": "evidence/series-2/questions/q71.md", "key_file": "evidence/series-2/keys/q71.md", "answers": { "deepseek": "evidence/series-2/answers/DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS/DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS__q71_r1.md", "claude": "evidence/series-2/answers/claude-opus-5/claude-opus-5__q71_r1.md", "qwen35": "evidence/series-2/answers/Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL/Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__q71_r1.md", "qwen38": "evidence/series-2/answers/Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL/Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__q71_r1.md" }, "reasoning": { "deepseek": "evidence/series-2/answers/DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS/DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS__q71_r1.reasoning.md", "qwen35": "evidence/series-2/answers/Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL/Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__q71_r1.reasoning.md", "qwen38": "evidence/series-2/answers/Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL/Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__q71_r1.reasoning.md" }, "pairings": { "qwen38-claude": { "key": "qwen38-claude", "label": "Qwen 3.8 vs Claude", "first": "qwen38", "second": "claude", "status": "tie", "result": "Functional tie", "short_result": "Tie", "basis": "Both answers direct the board to authorize settlement by 5:00 p.m. September 4, with current cash cost of $1.2 million and maximum authority of $1.3 million, conditioned on no admission, limited recitals, and no recall or sales restriction. Both distinguish the ten supported violations from the four disputed complaints, appropriately characterize the email, and leave management on the same materially safe execution path.", "short_basis": "Both answers direct the board to authorize settlement by 5:00 p.m. September 4, with current cash cost of $1.2 million and maximum authority of $1.3 million, conditioned on no admission, limited recitals, and no recall or sales restriction.", "answer_a_was": "claude-opus-5", "answer_b_was": "Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_a_display": "Claude Opus 5", "answer_b_display": "Qwen 3.8 27B", "winner": "TIE", "verdict_code": "TIE", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-2/verdicts/q71__Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__vs__claude-opus-5.json" }, "qwen38-deepseek": { "key": "qwen38-deepseek", "label": "Qwen 3.8 vs DeepSeek", "first": "qwen38", "second": "deepseek", "status": "tie", "result": "Functional tie", "short_result": "Tie", "basis": "Both answers recommend accepting the consent order by 5:00 p.m. September 4, authorize the same $1.2 million current cost and $1.3 million ceiling, preserve the same nonmonetary conditions, and continue remediation. No difference shown would likely change professional conduct or produce a concrete, record-supported consequence.", "short_basis": "Both answers recommend accepting the consent order by 5:00 p.m. September 4, authorize the same $1.2 million current cost and $1.3 million ceiling, preserve the same nonmonetary conditions, and continue remediation.", "answer_a_was": "Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_b_was": "DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS", "answer_a_display": "Qwen 3.8 27B", "answer_b_display": "DeepSeek V4-Flash-0731", "winner": "TIE", "verdict_code": "TIE", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-2/verdicts/q71__DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS__vs__Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL.json" }, "qwen38-qwen35": { "key": "qwen38-qwen35", "label": "Qwen 3.8 vs Qwen 3.5", "first": "qwen38", "second": "qwen35", "status": "tie", "result": "Functional tie", "short_result": "Tie", "basis": "Both answers direct the board to approve settlement by 5:00 p.m. September 4, recognize the $1.2 million current cost and $1.3 million ceiling, preserve the same nonmonetary conditions, and continue remediation. Answer A’s overstatement concerning the four local complaints is rejected under the supplied rule and does not change the board’s material decision or execution steps.", "short_basis": "Both answers direct the board to approve settlement by 5:00 p.m. September 4, recognize the $1.2 million current cost and $1.3 million ceiling, preserve the same nonmonetary conditions, and continue remediation.", "answer_a_was": "Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_b_was": "Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_a_display": "Qwen 3.5 27B", "answer_b_display": "Qwen 3.8 27B", "winner": "TIE", "verdict_code": "TIE", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-2/verdicts/q71__Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__vs__Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL.json" }, "deepseek-claude": { "key": "deepseek-claude", "label": "DeepSeek vs Claude", "first": "deepseek", "second": "claude", "status": "tie", "result": "Functional tie", "short_result": "Tie", "basis": "Both answers direct the board to settle by September 4, authorize the same $1.2 million current cost and $1.3 million ceiling, preserve the same nonmonetary conditions, and continue remediation. Their differences do not demonstrably change the board’s decision or leave StrataLift in a materially different legal, financial, or operational position.", "short_basis": "Both answers direct the board to settle by September 4, authorize the same $1.2 million current cost and $1.3 million ceiling, preserve the same nonmonetary conditions, and continue remediation.", "answer_a_was": "claude-opus-5", "answer_b_was": "DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS", "answer_a_display": "Claude Opus 5", "answer_b_display": "DeepSeek V4-Flash-0731", "winner": "TIE", "verdict_code": "TIE", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-2/verdicts/q71__DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS__vs__claude-opus-5.json" }, "deepseek-qwen35": { "key": "deepseek-qwen35", "label": "DeepSeek vs Qwen 3.5", "first": "deepseek", "second": "qwen35", "status": "tie", "result": "Functional tie", "short_result": "Tie", "basis": "Both answers direct the board to settle by September 4 at 5:00 p.m., authorize $1.2 million currently and $1.3 million maximum, preserve the three critical nonmonetary terms, and continue monitoring and remediation. After ordinary verification rejects the isolated unsupported statements, both readers remain on the same materially correct and safe path.", "short_basis": "Both answers direct the board to settle by September 4 at 5:00 p.m., authorize $1.2 million currently and $1.3 million maximum, preserve the three critical nonmonetary terms, and continue monitoring and remediation.", "answer_a_was": "Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_b_was": "DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS", "answer_a_display": "Qwen 3.5 27B", "answer_b_display": "DeepSeek V4-Flash-0731", "winner": "TIE", "verdict_code": "TIE", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-2/verdicts/q71__DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS__vs__Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL.json" }, "qwen35-claude": { "key": "qwen35-claude", "label": "Qwen 3.5 vs Claude", "first": "qwen35", "second": "claude", "status": "tie", "result": "Functional tie", "short_result": "Tie", "basis": "Both answers direct the Board to settle within a $1.3 million all-in ceiling before 5:00 p.m. September 4, conditioned on no admission, date-only recitals, and no recall or sales restriction. Both lead management to execute the order, retain the monitor, and continue remediation; no difference demonstrates a materially different client outcome.", "short_basis": "Both answers direct the Board to settle within a $1.3 million all-in ceiling before 5:00 p.m. September 4, conditioned on no admission, date-only recitals, and no recall or sales restriction.", "answer_a_was": "claude-opus-5", "answer_b_was": "Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_a_display": "Claude Opus 5", "answer_b_display": "Qwen 3.5 27B", "winner": "TIE", "verdict_code": "TIE", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-2/verdicts/q71__Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__vs__claude-opus-5.json" } }, "rejected_points": { "qwen38": 0, "deepseek": 6, "claude": 3, "qwen35": 5 }, "delivery_filter_matter": false }, { "qid": "q72", "number": 72, "series": "Series 2", "title": "The Vendor Renewal and the Real Walk-Away Number", "category": "Vendor negotiation", "matter_page": "matters/q72/index.html", "question_file": "evidence/series-2/questions/q72.md", "key_file": "evidence/series-2/keys/q72.md", "answers": { "deepseek": "evidence/series-2/answers/DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS/DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS__q72_r1.md", "claude": "evidence/series-2/answers/claude-opus-5/claude-opus-5__q72_r1.md", "qwen35": "evidence/series-2/answers/Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL/Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__q72_r1.md", "qwen38": "evidence/series-2/answers/Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL/Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__q72_r1.md" }, "reasoning": { "deepseek": "evidence/series-2/answers/DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS/DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS__q72_r1.reasoning.md", "claude": "evidence/series-2/answers/claude-opus-5/claude-opus-5__q72_r1.reasoning.md", "qwen35": "evidence/series-2/answers/Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL/Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__q72_r1.reasoning.md", "qwen38": "evidence/series-2/answers/Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL/Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__q72_r1.reasoning.md" }, "pairings": { "qwen38-claude": { "key": "qwen38-claude", "label": "Qwen 3.8 vs Claude", "first": "qwen38", "second": "claude", "status": "tie", "result": "Functional tie", "short_result": "Tie", "basis": "Both answers calculate the $12,950,000 BATNA, $4,316,667 annual equivalent, $2,050,000 Vireon premium, $10,800,000 opening, and $12,000,000 target, while requiring an executable Northline commitment by day 30. Both put Red Alder on the same material path: negotiate the unpriced terms without inventing values, reject an uncompensated above-reservation renewal, and timely execute Northline if necessary. No demonstrated difference changes Red Alder’s financial or operational position on the supplied facts.", "short_basis": "Both answers calculate the $12,950,000 BATNA, $4,316,667 annual equivalent, $2,050,000 Vireon premium, $10,800,000 opening, and $12,000,000 target, while requiring an executable Northline commitment by day 30.", "answer_a_was": "Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_b_was": "claude-opus-5", "answer_a_display": "Qwen 3.8 27B", "answer_b_display": "Claude Opus 5", "winner": "TIE", "verdict_code": "TIE", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-2/verdicts/q72__Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__vs__claude-opus-5.json" }, "qwen38-deepseek": { "key": "qwen38-deepseek", "label": "Qwen 3.8 vs DeepSeek", "first": "qwen38", "second": "deepseek", "status": "tie", "result": "Functional tie", "short_result": "Tie", "basis": "Both readers calculate a $12.95 million BATNA, open at $10.8 million, target $12 million, reject unsupported margin assumptions, preserve Northline by acting within 30 days, and switch if Vireon remains above the reservation price. No demonstrated difference changes Red Alder’s negotiation conduct or financial position.", "short_basis": "Both readers calculate a $12.95 million BATNA, open at $10.8 million, target $12 million, reject unsupported margin assumptions, preserve Northline by acting within 30 days, and switch if Vireon remains above the reservation price.", "answer_a_was": "Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_b_was": "DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS", "answer_a_display": "Qwen 3.8 27B", "answer_b_display": "DeepSeek V4-Flash-0731", "winner": "TIE", "verdict_code": "TIE", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-2/verdicts/q72__DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS__vs__Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL.json" }, "qwen38-qwen35": { "key": "qwen38-qwen35", "label": "Qwen 3.8 vs Qwen 3.5", "first": "qwen38", "second": "qwen35", "status": "tie", "result": "Functional tie", "short_result": "Tie", "basis": "Both answers calculate the same $12.95 million BATNA, $4.3167 million annual equivalent, $2.05 million Vireon premium, $10.8 million opening offer, $12 million target, and $12.95 million reservation price. Both direct Red Alder to activate Northline immediately, reject the unsupported $10 million rationale and day-100 threat, and sign Northline by day 30 if Vireon remains above the reservation price.", "short_basis": "Both answers calculate the same $12.95 million BATNA, $4.3167 million annual equivalent, $2.05 million Vireon premium, $10.8 million opening offer, $12 million target, and $12.95 million reservation price.", "answer_a_was": "Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_b_was": "Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_a_display": "Qwen 3.8 27B", "answer_b_display": "Qwen 3.5 27B", "winner": "TIE", "verdict_code": "TIE", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-2/verdicts/q72__Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__vs__Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL.json" }, "deepseek-claude": { "key": "deepseek-claude", "label": "DeepSeek vs Claude", "first": "deepseek", "second": "claude", "status": "tie", "result": "Functional tie", "short_result": "Tie", "basis": "Both answers calculate the $12.95 million BATNA and reservation price, open at $10.8 million, target $12 million, negotiate the supplied nonprice terms, and preserve the Northline alternative by signing no later than day 30. Both direct Red Alder to reject a Vireon price above the reservation price and execute the migration, producing the same materially correct and safe path.", "short_basis": "Both answers calculate the $12.95 million BATNA and reservation price, open at $10.8 million, target $12 million, negotiate the supplied nonprice terms, and preserve the Northline alternative by signing no later than day 30.", "answer_a_was": "claude-opus-5", "answer_b_was": "DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS", "answer_a_display": "Claude Opus 5", "answer_b_display": "DeepSeek V4-Flash-0731", "winner": "TIE", "verdict_code": "TIE", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-2/verdicts/q72__DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS__vs__claude-opus-5.json" }, "deepseek-qwen35": { "key": "deepseek-qwen35", "label": "DeepSeek vs Qwen 3.5", "first": "deepseek", "second": "qwen35", "status": "tie", "result": "Functional tie", "short_result": "Tie", "basis": "Both answers establish the same $12.95 million BATNA and reservation price, open at $10.8 million, target $12 million, negotiate the supplied nonprice terms, and require signing Northline by day 30 if Vireon remains above the reservation price. Ordinary verification resolves their isolated timeline and terminology inconsistencies without changing that materially safe course.", "short_basis": "Both answers establish the same $12.95 million BATNA and reservation price, open at $10.8 million, target $12 million, negotiate the supplied nonprice terms, and require signing Northline by day 30 if Vireon remains above the reservation price.", "answer_a_was": "Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_b_was": "DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS", "answer_a_display": "Qwen 3.5 27B", "answer_b_display": "DeepSeek V4-Flash-0731", "winner": "TIE", "verdict_code": "TIE", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-2/verdicts/q72__DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS__vs__Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL.json" }, "qwen35-claude": { "key": "qwen35-claude", "label": "Qwen 3.5 vs Claude", "first": "qwen35", "second": "claude", "status": "tie", "result": "Functional tie", "short_result": "Tie", "basis": "Both answers calculate a $12,950,000 three-year BATNA, a $4,316,667 annual equivalent, and a $2,050,000 premium in Vireon’s proposal; both open at $10,800,000, target $12,000,000, negotiate the supplied nonprice terms, and reject the margin-based $10,000,000 rationale. After ordinary verification rejects Answer A’s contradictory day-110 instruction, both readers reach the same material path: preserve Northline’s offer, sign by day 30 if Vireon remains above the reservation price, and complete migration by day 120.", "short_basis": "Both answers calculate a $12,950,000 three-year BATNA, a $4,316,667 annual equivalent, and a $2,050,000 premium in Vireon’s proposal; both open at $10,800,000, target $12,000,000, negotiate the supplied nonprice terms, and reject the margin-based $10,000,000 rationale.", "answer_a_was": "Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_b_was": "claude-opus-5", "answer_a_display": "Qwen 3.5 27B", "answer_b_display": "Claude Opus 5", "winner": "TIE", "verdict_code": "TIE", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-2/verdicts/q72__Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__vs__claude-opus-5.json" } }, "rejected_points": { "qwen38": 0, "deepseek": 3, "claude": 9, "qwen35": 9 }, "delivery_filter_matter": false }, { "qid": "q73", "number": 73, "series": "Series 2", "title": "The Four-State Telehealth Map", "category": "Telehealth regulation", "matter_page": "matters/q73/index.html", "question_file": "evidence/series-2/questions/q73.md", "key_file": "evidence/series-2/keys/q73.md", "answers": { "deepseek": "evidence/series-2/answers/DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS/DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS__q73_r1.md", "claude": "evidence/series-2/answers/claude-opus-5/claude-opus-5__q73_r1.md", "qwen35": "evidence/series-2/answers/Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL/Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__q73_r1.md", "qwen38": "evidence/series-2/answers/Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL/Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__q73_r1.md" }, "reasoning": { "deepseek": "evidence/series-2/answers/DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS/DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS__q73_r1.reasoning.md", "claude": "evidence/series-2/answers/claude-opus-5/claude-opus-5__q73_r1.reasoning.md", "qwen35": "evidence/series-2/answers/Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL/Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__q73_r1.reasoning.md", "qwen38": "evidence/series-2/answers/Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL/Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__q73_r1.reasoning.md" }, "pairings": { "qwen38-claude": { "key": "qwen38-claude", "label": "Qwen 3.8 vs Claude", "first": "qwen38", "second": "claude", "status": "tie", "result": "Functional tie", "short_result": "Tie", "basis": "Both answers direct Clearpath to the same lawful rollout: antidepressant care in all four states with the authorized clinician, fully virtual stimulant care only in Birch, hybrid stimulant care in Alder and Cedar after a Clearpath in-person examination, and no Dune stimulant telehealth. They impose the same location, consent, Cedar permit, Birch monitoring, outside-exam, platform-blocking, and marketing requirements.", "short_basis": "Both answers direct Clearpath to the same lawful rollout: antidepressant care in all four states with the authorized clinician, fully virtual stimulant care only in Birch, hybrid stimulant care in Alder and Cedar after a Clearpath in-person examination, and no Dune stimulant telehealth.", "answer_a_was": "claude-opus-5", "answer_b_was": "Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_a_display": "Claude Opus 5", "answer_b_display": "Qwen 3.8 27B", "winner": "TIE", "verdict_code": "TIE", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-2/verdicts/q73__Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__vs__claude-opus-5.json" }, "qwen38-deepseek": { "key": "qwen38-deepseek", "label": "Qwen 3.8 vs DeepSeek", "first": "qwen38", "second": "deepseek", "status": "tie", "result": "Functional tie", "short_result": "Tie", "basis": "Both answers authorize antidepressant telehealth in all four states with the same clinician assignments; permit fully virtual stimulant care only in Birch; require Clearpath in-person examinations for Alder and Cedar stimulant pathways; and block stimulant telehealth in Dune. They also reject outside-primary-care examinations in Alder and Cedar, impose the same location, consent, Birch monitoring, platform-blocking, and marketing requirements, leaving both readers on the same materially lawful rollout path.", "short_basis": "Both answers authorize antidepressant telehealth in all four states with the same clinician assignments; permit fully virtual stimulant care only in Birch; require Clearpath in-person examinations for Alder and Cedar stimulant pathways; and block stimulant telehealth in Dune.", "answer_a_was": "DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS", "answer_b_was": "Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_a_display": "DeepSeek V4-Flash-0731", "answer_b_display": "Qwen 3.8 27B", "winner": "TIE", "verdict_code": "TIE", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-2/verdicts/q73__DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS__vs__Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL.json" }, "qwen38-qwen35": { "key": "qwen38-qwen35", "label": "Qwen 3.8 vs Qwen 3.5", "first": "qwen38", "second": "qwen35", "status": "tie", "result": "Functional tie", "short_result": "Tie", "basis": "Both answers produce the same lawful rollout: state-specific clinician routing for antidepressants, Cedar entity-permit compliance, fully virtual stimulant care only in Birch with a documented monitoring-database check before each prescription, hybrid pathways in Alder and Cedar based on Clearpath examinations, and no Dune telehealth stimulant prescribing. Both also require location verification and consent, reject outside examinations in Alder and Cedar, impose the same platform blocks, and prohibit the four-state fully virtual ADHD claim.", "short_basis": "Both answers produce the same lawful rollout: state-specific clinician routing for antidepressants, Cedar entity-permit compliance, fully virtual stimulant care only in Birch with a documented monitoring-database check before each prescription, hybrid pathways in Alder and Cedar based on Clearpath…", "answer_a_was": "Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_b_was": "Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_a_display": "Qwen 3.8 27B", "answer_b_display": "Qwen 3.5 27B", "winner": "TIE", "verdict_code": "TIE", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-2/verdicts/q73__Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__vs__Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL.json" }, "deepseek-claude": { "key": "deepseek-claude", "label": "DeepSeek vs Claude", "first": "deepseek", "second": "claude", "status": "tie", "result": "Functional tie", "short_result": "Tie", "basis": "Both answers produce the same lawful rollout: virtual antidepressant care in all four states, fully virtual stimulant care only in Birch, hybrid stimulant pathways in Alder and Cedar, and no stimulant telehealth in Dune. They require the same clinician assignments, entity permit, in-practice examinations, Birch monitoring checks, location verification, consent, platform blocks, and withdrawal of the proposed marketing claim.", "short_basis": "Both answers produce the same lawful rollout: virtual antidepressant care in all four states, fully virtual stimulant care only in Birch, hybrid stimulant pathways in Alder and Cedar, and no stimulant telehealth in Dune.", "answer_a_was": "claude-opus-5", "answer_b_was": "DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS", "answer_a_display": "Claude Opus 5", "answer_b_display": "DeepSeek V4-Flash-0731", "winner": "TIE", "verdict_code": "TIE", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-2/verdicts/q73__DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS__vs__claude-opus-5.json" }, "deepseek-qwen35": { "key": "deepseek-qwen35", "label": "DeepSeek vs Qwen 3.5", "first": "deepseek", "second": "qwen35", "status": "tie", "result": "Functional tie", "short_result": "Tie", "basis": "Both answers authorize video antidepressant care in all four states with the same clinician routing, permit fully virtual stimulant treatment only in Birch, require Clearpath in-person examinations for Alder and Cedar stimulant pathways, and block all Dune stimulant prescribing. They impose the same location, consent, Birch monitoring, platform-blocking, and marketing restrictions.", "short_basis": "Both answers authorize video antidepressant care in all four states with the same clinician routing, permit fully virtual stimulant treatment only in Birch, require Clearpath in-person examinations for Alder and Cedar stimulant pathways, and block all Dune stimulant prescribing.", "answer_a_was": "DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS", "answer_b_was": "Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_a_display": "DeepSeek V4-Flash-0731", "answer_b_display": "Qwen 3.5 27B", "winner": "TIE", "verdict_code": "TIE", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-2/verdicts/q73__DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS__vs__Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL.json" }, "qwen35-claude": { "key": "qwen35-claude", "label": "Qwen 3.5 vs Claude", "first": "qwen35", "second": "claude", "status": "tie", "result": "Functional tie", "short_result": "Tie", "basis": "Both answers direct Clearpath to the same lawful rollout: virtual antidepressant care in all four states with the identified clinicians, fully virtual stimulant treatment only in Birch, hybrid stimulant pathways in Alder and Cedar, and no stimulant pathway in Dune. Both require location verification, consent, Birch monitoring checks, qualifying Clearpath examinations, appropriate platform blocks, and withdrawal of the four-state fully virtual ADHD claim.", "short_basis": "Both answers direct Clearpath to the same lawful rollout: virtual antidepressant care in all four states with the identified clinicians, fully virtual stimulant treatment only in Birch, hybrid stimulant pathways in Alder and Cedar, and no stimulant pathway in Dune.", "answer_a_was": "claude-opus-5", "answer_b_was": "Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_a_display": "Claude Opus 5", "answer_b_display": "Qwen 3.5 27B", "winner": "TIE", "verdict_code": "TIE", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-2/verdicts/q73__Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__vs__claude-opus-5.json" } }, "rejected_points": { "qwen38": 0, "deepseek": 0, "claude": 0, "qwen35": 3 }, "delivery_filter_matter": false }, { "qid": "q74", "number": 74, "series": "Series 2", "title": "The Missing Risk in the Consent Form", "category": "Research consent", "matter_page": "matters/q74/index.html", "question_file": "evidence/series-2/questions/q74.md", "key_file": "evidence/series-2/keys/q74.md", "answers": { "deepseek": "evidence/series-2/answers/DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS/DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS__q74_r1.md", "claude": "evidence/series-2/answers/claude-opus-5/claude-opus-5__q74_r1.md", "qwen35": "evidence/series-2/answers/Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL/Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__q74_r1.md", "qwen38": "evidence/series-2/answers/Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL/Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__q74_r1.md" }, "reasoning": { "deepseek": "evidence/series-2/answers/DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS/DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS__q74_r1.reasoning.md", "claude": "evidence/series-2/answers/claude-opus-5/claude-opus-5__q74_r1.reasoning.md", "qwen35": "evidence/series-2/answers/Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL/Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__q74_r1.reasoning.md", "qwen38": "evidence/series-2/answers/Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL/Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__q74_r1.reasoning.md" }, "pairings": { "qwen38-claude": { "key": "qwen38-claude", "label": "Qwen 3.8 vs Claude", "first": "qwen38", "second": "claude", "status": "tie", "result": "Functional tie", "short_result": "Tie", "basis": "Both answers place NovaCrest on the same materially safe path: immediate enrollment and intervention holds, continued care, prompt oversight reporting, emergency approval, affected-subject re-consent and notice, record preservation, individual scope verification, and ethics-board control over prior data. Their operational differences do not produce a concrete, record-supported difference in subject safety, rights, reporting compliance, or data integrity.", "short_basis": "Both answers place NovaCrest on the same materially safe path: immediate enrollment and intervention holds, continued care, prompt oversight reporting, emergency approval, affected-subject re-consent and notice, record preservation, individual scope verification, and ethics-board control over prior data.", "answer_a_was": "Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_b_was": "claude-opus-5", "answer_a_display": "Qwen 3.8 27B", "answer_b_display": "Claude Opus 5", "winner": "TIE", "verdict_code": "TIE", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-2/verdicts/q74__Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__vs__claude-opus-5.json" }, "qwen38-deepseek": { "key": "qwen38-deepseek", "label": "Qwen 3.8 vs DeepSeek", "first": "qwen38", "second": "deepseek", "status": "tie", "result": "Functional tie", "short_result": "Tie", "basis": "Both answers put NovaCrest on the same material path: immediate enrollment and intervention holds for defective or unverified consent, continued care, prompt oversight reporting, emergency approval, subject-level verification, re-consent or notice, preservation, and ethics-board control of prior data use. Both prevent implantation based on defective or unresolved consent and reject post hoc email and PDF replacement, so no record-supported client outcome differs.", "short_basis": "Both answers put NovaCrest on the same material path: immediate enrollment and intervention holds for defective or unverified consent, continued care, prompt oversight reporting, emergency approval, subject-level verification, re-consent or notice, preservation, and ethics-board control of prior data use.", "answer_a_was": "Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_b_was": "DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS", "answer_a_display": "Qwen 3.8 27B", "answer_b_display": "DeepSeek V4-Flash-0731", "winner": "TIE", "verdict_code": "TIE", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-2/verdicts/q74__DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS__vs__Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL.json" }, "qwen38-qwen35": { "key": "qwen38-qwen35", "label": "Qwen 3.8 vs Qwen 3.5", "first": "qwen38", "second": "qwen35", "status": "tie", "result": "Functional tie", "short_result": "Tie", "basis": "Both answers direct the same materially safe path: immediate holds for defective or unverified consent, continued necessary care, timely oversight reporting, emergency approval, subject-level verification and re-consent, completed-subject notice, preservation of the audit trail, and ethics-board control over prior data use. Their differences do not establish a concrete, record-supported change in subject safety, consent validity, reporting compliance, or data treatment.", "short_basis": "Both answers direct the same materially safe path: immediate holds for defective or unverified consent, continued necessary care, timely oversight reporting, emergency approval, subject-level verification and re-consent, completed-subject notice, preservation of the audit trail, and ethics-board control…", "answer_a_was": "Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_b_was": "Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_a_display": "Qwen 3.8 27B", "answer_b_display": "Qwen 3.5 27B", "winner": "TIE", "verdict_code": "TIE", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-2/verdicts/q74__Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__vs__Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL.json" }, "deepseek-claude": { "key": "deepseek-claude", "label": "DeepSeek vs Claude", "first": "deepseek", "second": "claude", "status": "tie", "result": "Functional tie", "short_result": "Tie", "basis": "Both answers lead NovaCrest to halt enrollment and affected or unverified interventions, continue necessary care, report promptly, obtain emergency approval, re-consent before intervention, notify completed subjects, preserve data and records, and determine scope subject by subject. Their operational differences do not produce a concrete, record-supported improvement or harm to the client.", "short_basis": "Both answers lead NovaCrest to halt enrollment and affected or unverified interventions, continue necessary care, report promptly, obtain emergency approval, re-consent before intervention, notify completed subjects, preserve data and records, and determine scope subject by subject.", "answer_a_was": "DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS", "answer_b_was": "claude-opus-5", "answer_a_display": "DeepSeek V4-Flash-0731", "answer_b_display": "Claude Opus 5", "winner": "TIE", "verdict_code": "TIE", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-2/verdicts/q74__DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS__vs__claude-opus-5.json" }, "deepseek-qwen35": { "key": "deepseek-qwen35", "label": "DeepSeek vs Qwen 3.5", "first": "deepseek", "second": "qwen35", "status": "tie", "result": "Functional tie", "short_result": "Tie", "basis": "Both readers would immediately halt enrollment and nonurgent interventions for confirmed or unverified defective-form subjects, continue necessary care, preserve records, investigate consent versions, make timely reports, obtain ethics-board approval, re-consent affected pending subjects, notify completed subjects, and defer data-use decisions to the board. Their differences do not produce a record-supported material consequence, particularly because no urgent intervention depends on the schedule.", "short_basis": "Both readers would immediately halt enrollment and nonurgent interventions for confirmed or unverified defective-form subjects, continue necessary care, preserve records, investigate consent versions, make timely reports, obtain ethics-board approval, re-consent affected pending subjects, notify completed…", "answer_a_was": "Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_b_was": "DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS", "answer_a_display": "Qwen 3.5 27B", "answer_b_display": "DeepSeek V4-Flash-0731", "winner": "TIE", "verdict_code": "TIE", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-2/verdicts/q74__DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS__vs__Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL.json" }, "qwen35-claude": { "key": "qwen35-claude", "label": "Qwen 3.5 vs Claude", "first": "qwen35", "second": "claude", "status": "tie", "result": "Functional tie", "short_result": "Tie", "basis": "Both answers direct an immediate enrollment and nonurgent-intervention hold, continued necessary care, prompt oversight reporting, emergency approval of corrected materials, pre-intervention re-consent, affected-subject notification, record preservation, subject-level scope verification, and ethics-board control over existing data. Their additional or differing measures do not establish a materially different client outcome on the supplied record.", "short_basis": "Both answers direct an immediate enrollment and nonurgent-intervention hold, continued necessary care, prompt oversight reporting, emergency approval of corrected materials, pre-intervention re-consent, affected-subject notification, record preservation, subject-level scope verification, and ethics-board…", "answer_a_was": "Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_b_was": "claude-opus-5", "answer_a_display": "Qwen 3.5 27B", "answer_b_display": "Claude Opus 5", "winner": "TIE", "verdict_code": "TIE", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-2/verdicts/q74__Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__vs__claude-opus-5.json" } }, "rejected_points": { "qwen38": 1, "deepseek": 2, "claude": 4, "qwen35": 6 }, "delivery_filter_matter": false }, { "qid": "q75", "number": 75, "series": "Series 2", "title": "The Salaried Operations Analyst", "category": "Wage and hour", "matter_page": "matters/q75/index.html", "question_file": "evidence/series-2/questions/q75.md", "key_file": "evidence/series-2/keys/q75.md", "answers": { "deepseek": "evidence/series-2/answers/DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS/DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS__q75_r1.md", "claude": "evidence/series-2/answers/claude-opus-5/claude-opus-5__q75_r1.md", "qwen35": "evidence/series-2/answers/Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL/Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__q75_r1.md", "qwen38": "evidence/series-2/answers/Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL/Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__q75_r1.md" }, "reasoning": { "deepseek": "evidence/series-2/answers/DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS/DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS__q75_r1.reasoning.md", "claude": "evidence/series-2/answers/claude-opus-5/claude-opus-5__q75_r1.reasoning.md", "qwen35": "evidence/series-2/answers/Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL/Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__q75_r1.reasoning.md", "qwen38": "evidence/series-2/answers/Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL/Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__q75_r1.reasoning.md" }, "pairings": { "qwen38-claude": { "key": "qwen38-claude", "label": "Qwen 3.8 vs Claude", "first": "qwen38", "second": "claude", "status": "local", "result": "Qwen 3.8 win", "short_result": "Qwen 3.8 win", "basis": "Answer A correctly concludes that Noah is nonexempt, establishes willfulness and liquidated damages, calculates $46,800 in unpaid overtime and a $93,600 total recovery, and provides a concrete demand. Answer B ends mid-sentence and supplies no conclusion, calculation, or litigation position, leaving the reader unable to advance Noah’s claim without reconstructing the entire analysis.", "short_basis": "Answer A correctly concludes that Noah is nonexempt, establishes willfulness and liquidated damages, calculates $46,800 in unpaid overtime and a $93,600 total recovery, and provides a concrete demand.", "answer_a_was": "Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_b_was": "claude-opus-5", "answer_a_display": "Qwen 3.8 27B", "answer_b_display": "Claude Opus 5", "winner": "Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "verdict_code": "A", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-2/verdicts/q75__Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__vs__claude-opus-5.json" }, "qwen38-deepseek": { "key": "qwen38-deepseek", "label": "Qwen 3.8 vs DeepSeek", "first": "qwen38", "second": "deepseek", "status": "tie", "result": "Functional tie", "short_result": "Tie", "basis": "Both answers lead Noah to the same materially correct path: challenge the exemption, claim all 120 weeks as willful, demand $46,800 in overtime plus equal liquidated damages, and seek $93,600 before fees and costs. Answer B’s additional fallback and tactical detail does not establish a different beneficial outcome on the supplied record.", "short_basis": "Both answers lead Noah to the same materially correct path: challenge the exemption, claim all 120 weeks as willful, demand $46,800 in overtime plus equal liquidated damages, and seek $93,600 before fees and costs.", "answer_a_was": "DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS", "answer_b_was": "Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_a_display": "DeepSeek V4-Flash-0731", "answer_b_display": "Qwen 3.8 27B", "winner": "TIE", "verdict_code": "TIE", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-2/verdicts/q75__DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS__vs__Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL.json" }, "qwen38-qwen35": { "key": "qwen38-qwen35", "label": "Qwen 3.8 vs Qwen 3.5", "first": "qwen38", "second": "qwen35", "status": "tie", "result": "Functional tie", "short_result": "Tie", "basis": "Both answers lead counsel to classify Noah as nonexempt, invoke the three-year willful period, demand $46,800 in overtime plus $46,800 in liquidated damages, and seek $93,600 before attorney fees and costs. No supported difference changes Noah’s recoverable wages or materially alters the litigation path.", "short_basis": "Both answers lead counsel to classify Noah as nonexempt, invoke the three-year willful period, demand $46,800 in overtime plus $46,800 in liquidated damages, and seek $93,600 before attorney fees and costs. No supported difference changes Noah’s recoverable wages or materially alters the litigation path.", "answer_a_was": "Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_b_was": "Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_a_display": "Qwen 3.8 27B", "answer_b_display": "Qwen 3.5 27B", "winner": "TIE", "verdict_code": "TIE", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-2/verdicts/q75__Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__vs__Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL.json" }, "deepseek-claude": { "key": "deepseek-claude", "label": "DeepSeek vs Claude", "first": "deepseek", "second": "claude", "status": "local", "result": "DeepSeek win", "short_result": "DeepSeek win", "basis": "Answer A establishes nonexempt status, willfulness, all 120 actionable weeks, and a supported demand for $93,600 plus fees and costs. Answer B is an incomplete fragment that supplies no analysis, calculation, or demand, leaving its reader unable to advance Noah’s claim without reconstructing the entire answer.", "short_basis": "Answer A establishes nonexempt status, willfulness, all 120 actionable weeks, and a supported demand for $93,600 plus fees and costs. Answer B is an incomplete fragment that supplies no analysis, calculation, or demand, leaving its reader unable to advance Noah’s claim without reconstructing the entire…", "answer_a_was": "DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS", "answer_b_was": "claude-opus-5", "answer_a_display": "DeepSeek V4-Flash-0731", "answer_b_display": "Claude Opus 5", "winner": "DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS", "verdict_code": "A", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-2/verdicts/q75__DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS__vs__claude-opus-5.json" }, "deepseek-qwen35": { "key": "deepseek-qwen35", "label": "DeepSeek vs Qwen 3.5", "first": "deepseek", "second": "qwen35", "status": "tie", "result": "Functional tie", "short_result": "Tie", "basis": "Both answers lead counsel to classify Noah as nonexempt, invoke the three-year willful period, and demand $93,600 plus recoverable fees and costs. Answer B’s unsupported interest demand and categorical settlement stance do not establish a record-supported improvement or harm.", "short_basis": "Both answers lead counsel to classify Noah as nonexempt, invoke the three-year willful period, and demand $93,600 plus recoverable fees and costs. Answer B’s unsupported interest demand and categorical settlement stance do not establish a record-supported improvement or harm.", "answer_a_was": "DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS", "answer_b_was": "Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_a_display": "DeepSeek V4-Flash-0731", "answer_b_display": "Qwen 3.5 27B", "winner": "TIE", "verdict_code": "TIE", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-2/verdicts/q75__DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS__vs__Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL.json" }, "qwen35-claude": { "key": "qwen35-claude", "label": "Qwen 3.5 vs Claude", "first": "qwen35", "second": "claude", "status": "local", "result": "Qwen 3.5 win", "short_result": "Qwen 3.5 win", "basis": "Answer A is truncated and omits the exemption analysis, limitation determination, calculations, damages, and demand necessary to act. Answer B correctly directs counsel to pursue all 120 weeks, demanding $46,800 in unpaid overtime plus $46,800 in liquidated damages, for a total of $93,600 before fees and costs.", "short_basis": "Answer A is truncated and omits the exemption analysis, limitation determination, calculations, damages, and demand necessary to act. Answer B correctly directs counsel to pursue all 120 weeks, demanding $46,800 in unpaid overtime plus $46,800 in liquidated damages, for a total of $93,600 before fees and…", "answer_a_was": "claude-opus-5", "answer_b_was": "Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_a_display": "Claude Opus 5", "answer_b_display": "Qwen 3.5 27B", "winner": "Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "verdict_code": "B", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-2/verdicts/q75__Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__vs__claude-opus-5.json" } }, "rejected_points": { "qwen38": 5, "deepseek": 0, "claude": 0, "qwen35": 5 }, "delivery_filter_matter": true }, { "qid": "q76", "number": 76, "series": "Series 2", "title": "The Executive Exit Agreement Audit", "category": "Executive employment", "matter_page": "matters/q76/index.html", "question_file": "evidence/series-2/questions/q76.md", "key_file": "evidence/series-2/keys/q76.md", "answers": { "deepseek": "evidence/series-2/answers/DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS/DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS__q76_r1.md", "claude": "evidence/series-2/answers/claude-opus-5/claude-opus-5__q76_r1.md", "qwen35": "evidence/series-2/answers/Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL/Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__q76_r1.md", "qwen38": "evidence/series-2/answers/Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL/Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__q76_r1.md" }, "reasoning": { "deepseek": "evidence/series-2/answers/DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS/DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS__q76_r1.reasoning.md", "claude": "evidence/series-2/answers/claude-opus-5/claude-opus-5__q76_r1.reasoning.md", "qwen35": "evidence/series-2/answers/Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL/Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__q76_r1.reasoning.md", "qwen38": "evidence/series-2/answers/Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL/Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__q76_r1.reasoning.md" }, "pairings": { "qwen38-claude": { "key": "qwen38-claude", "label": "Qwen 3.8 vs Claude", "first": "qwen38", "second": "claude", "status": "tie", "result": "Functional tie", "short_result": "Tie", "basis": "Both answers direct Ava to reject the draft, preserve the vested bonus and equity, secure her planned product role through deletion or an express carve-out, narrow the nonsolicitation and confidentiality provisions, delete the invention trailer, require adjudicated and proportionate remedies, and add the seven-day revocation period. Their drafting and negotiation differences do not establish a materially different outcome for Ava.", "short_basis": "Both answers direct Ava to reject the draft, preserve the vested bonus and equity, secure her planned product role through deletion or an express carve-out, narrow the nonsolicitation and confidentiality provisions, delete the invention trailer, require adjudicated and proportionate remedies, and add the…", "answer_a_was": "Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_b_was": "claude-opus-5", "answer_a_display": "Qwen 3.8 27B", "answer_b_display": "Claude Opus 5", "winner": "TIE", "verdict_code": "TIE", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-2/verdicts/q76__Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__vs__claude-opus-5.json" }, "qwen38-deepseek": { "key": "qwen38-deepseek", "label": "Qwen 3.8 vs DeepSeek", "first": "qwen38", "second": "deepseek", "status": "tie", "result": "Functional tie", "short_result": "Tie", "basis": "Both answers direct Ava not to sign the draft, preserve her earned bonus and vested equity, protect her planned employment, narrow the solicitation and confidentiality covenants, delete the post-employment invention assignment, require proportionate adjudicated remedies, and add the seven-day revocation period. Their isolated drafting differences do not establish a different concrete outcome on the supplied facts.", "short_basis": "Both answers direct Ava not to sign the draft, preserve her earned bonus and vested equity, protect her planned employment, narrow the solicitation and confidentiality covenants, delete the post-employment invention assignment, require proportionate adjudicated remedies, and add the seven-day revocation…", "answer_a_was": "Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_b_was": "DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS", "answer_a_display": "Qwen 3.8 27B", "answer_b_display": "DeepSeek V4-Flash-0731", "winner": "TIE", "verdict_code": "TIE", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-2/verdicts/q76__DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS__vs__Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL.json" }, "qwen38-qwen35": { "key": "qwen38-qwen35", "label": "Qwen 3.8 vs Qwen 3.5", "first": "qwen38", "second": "qwen35", "status": "local", "result": "Qwen 3.8 win", "short_result": "Qwen 3.8 win", "basis": "Answer A expressly deletes the draft’s prohibition on accepting unsolicited customer business, while Answer B narrows the covered customers and duration but never removes that prohibited conduct. A lawyer following Answer B would likely leave Ava contractually unable to accept unsolicited business from customers she served, contrary to her stated willingness to avoid only solicitation and materially impairing her customer relationships and new product role.", "short_basis": "Answer A expressly deletes the draft’s prohibition on accepting unsolicited customer business, while Answer B narrows the covered customers and duration but never removes that prohibited conduct.", "answer_a_was": "Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_b_was": "Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_a_display": "Qwen 3.8 27B", "answer_b_display": "Qwen 3.5 27B", "winner": "Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "verdict_code": "A", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-2/verdicts/q76__Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__vs__Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL.json" }, "deepseek-claude": { "key": "deepseek-claude", "label": "DeepSeek vs Claude", "first": "deepseek", "second": "claude", "status": "tie", "result": "Functional tie", "short_result": "Tie", "basis": "Both answers direct Ava not to sign the draft, preserve her vested bonus and equity, reject any noncompete barring the planned role, narrow the nonsolicitation and confidentiality provisions, delete the post-employment invention assignment, require adjudicated and proportionate breach remedies, and add the seven-day revocation period. Their drafting and negotiation details differ, but both place a competent reader on the same materially correct and safe path.", "short_basis": "Both answers direct Ava not to sign the draft, preserve her vested bonus and equity, reject any noncompete barring the planned role, narrow the nonsolicitation and confidentiality provisions, delete the post-employment invention assignment, require adjudicated and proportionate breach remedies, and add the…", "answer_a_was": "claude-opus-5", "answer_b_was": "DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS", "answer_a_display": "Claude Opus 5", "answer_b_display": "DeepSeek V4-Flash-0731", "winner": "TIE", "verdict_code": "TIE", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-2/verdicts/q76__DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS__vs__claude-opus-5.json" }, "deepseek-qwen35": { "key": "deepseek-qwen35", "label": "DeepSeek vs Qwen 3.5", "first": "deepseek", "second": "qwen35", "status": "tie", "result": "Functional tie", "short_result": "Tie", "basis": "Both answers direct Ava not to sign the draft, preserve her vested bonus and equity, protect her planned product role, narrow the nonsolicitation and confidentiality provisions, delete the post-employment invention claim, require proportionate adjudicated remedies, and add the seven-day revocation period. Their differences do not establish that Ava would take a materially different path or experience a concrete, record-supported difference in compensation, employment, or legal protection.", "short_basis": "Both answers direct Ava not to sign the draft, preserve her vested bonus and equity, protect her planned product role, narrow the nonsolicitation and confidentiality provisions, delete the post-employment invention claim, require proportionate adjudicated remedies, and add the seven-day revocation period.", "answer_a_was": "DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS", "answer_b_was": "Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_a_display": "DeepSeek V4-Flash-0731", "answer_b_display": "Qwen 3.5 27B", "winner": "TIE", "verdict_code": "TIE", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-2/verdicts/q76__DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS__vs__Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL.json" }, "qwen35-claude": { "key": "qwen35-claude", "label": "Qwen 3.5 vs Claude", "first": "qwen35", "second": "claude", "status": "frontier", "result": "Claude win", "short_result": "Claude win", "basis": "Answer A expressly deletes the draft’s prohibition on “accepting” customer business, while Answer B narrows the covered customers and duration but leaves that prohibition unaddressed. Following Answer B could therefore leave Ava contractually unable to accept unsolicited business from covered customers in her new role, contrary to Rule 3 and her stated willingness to restrict only solicitation.", "short_basis": "Answer A expressly deletes the draft’s prohibition on “accepting” customer business, while Answer B narrows the covered customers and duration but leaves that prohibition unaddressed.", "answer_a_was": "claude-opus-5", "answer_b_was": "Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_a_display": "Claude Opus 5", "answer_b_display": "Qwen 3.5 27B", "winner": "claude-opus-5", "verdict_code": "A", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-2/verdicts/q76__Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__vs__claude-opus-5.json" } }, "rejected_points": { "qwen38": 2, "deepseek": 1, "claude": 2, "qwen35": 3 }, "delivery_filter_matter": false }, { "qid": "q77", "number": 77, "series": "Series 2", "title": "The Power of Attorney, the Transfer, and the Capacity Crisis", "category": "Capacity and elder law", "matter_page": "matters/q77/index.html", "question_file": "evidence/series-2/questions/q77.md", "key_file": "evidence/series-2/keys/q77.md", "answers": { "deepseek": "evidence/series-2/answers/DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS/DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS__q77_r1.md", "claude": "evidence/series-2/answers/claude-opus-5/claude-opus-5__q77_r1.md", "qwen35": "evidence/series-2/answers/Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL/Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__q77_r1.md", "qwen38": "evidence/series-2/answers/Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL/Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__q77_r1.md" }, "reasoning": { "deepseek": "evidence/series-2/answers/DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS/DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS__q77_r1.reasoning.md", "claude": "evidence/series-2/answers/claude-opus-5/claude-opus-5__q77_r1.reasoning.md", "qwen35": "evidence/series-2/answers/Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL/Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__q77_r1.reasoning.md", "qwen38": "evidence/series-2/answers/Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL/Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__q77_r1.reasoning.md" }, "pairings": { "qwen38-claude": { "key": "qwen38-claude", "label": "Qwen 3.8 vs Claude", "first": "qwen38", "second": "claude", "status": "tie", "result": "Functional tie", "short_result": "Tie", "basis": "Both answers lead counsel to oppose full guardianship, sale, and placement; obtain narrow emergency authority to pay the mortgage and payroll; suspend Marcus, compel an accounting, and recover the $85,000; and reassess Eleanor after treatment using decision-specific supports. Their differences do not alter Eleanor’s materially safe legal, financial, or residential position.", "short_basis": "Both answers lead counsel to oppose full guardianship, sale, and placement; obtain narrow emergency authority to pay the mortgage and payroll; suspend Marcus, compel an accounting, and recover the $85,000; and reassess Eleanor after treatment using decision-specific supports.", "answer_a_was": "claude-opus-5", "answer_b_was": "Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_a_display": "Claude Opus 5", "answer_b_display": "Qwen 3.8 27B", "winner": "TIE", "verdict_code": "TIE", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-2/verdicts/q77__Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__vs__claude-opus-5.json" }, "qwen38-deepseek": { "key": "qwen38-deepseek", "label": "Qwen 3.8 vs DeepSeek", "first": "qwen38", "second": "deepseek", "status": "tie", "result": "Functional tie", "short_result": "Tie", "basis": "Both answers place Eleanor on the same materially correct path: obtain narrow emergency relief to pay essential bills and suspend Marcus, preserve and recover the $85,000, conduct a decision-specific reassessment, and use supported or limited fiduciary arrangements rather than full guardianship. Their differences do not change Eleanor’s immediate protection, residence, asset-recovery posture, or least restrictive 14- and 30-day sequence.", "short_basis": "Both answers place Eleanor on the same materially correct path: obtain narrow emergency relief to pay essential bills and suspend Marcus, preserve and recover the $85,000, conduct a decision-specific reassessment, and use supported or limited fiduciary arrangements rather than full guardianship.", "answer_a_was": "DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS", "answer_b_was": "Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_a_display": "DeepSeek V4-Flash-0731", "answer_b_display": "Qwen 3.8 27B", "winner": "TIE", "verdict_code": "TIE", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-2/verdicts/q77__DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS__vs__Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL.json" }, "qwen38-qwen35": { "key": "qwen38-qwen35", "label": "Qwen 3.8 vs Qwen 3.5", "first": "qwen38", "second": "qwen35", "status": "tie", "result": "Functional tie", "short_result": "Tie", "basis": "Both answers direct counsel to oppose full guardianship, sale, and placement; suspend Marcus, compel an accounting and recovery; secure the mortgage and payroll through narrow emergency relief; and reassess Eleanor in 14 days before selecting supported decision-making, replacement agency, or limited conservatorship. No difference establishes a concrete, record-supported change in Eleanor’s legal, financial, or residential outcome.", "short_basis": "Both answers direct counsel to oppose full guardianship, sale, and placement; suspend Marcus, compel an accounting and recovery; secure the mortgage and payroll through narrow emergency relief; and reassess Eleanor in 14 days before selecting supported decision-making, replacement agency, or limited…", "answer_a_was": "Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_b_was": "Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_a_display": "Qwen 3.8 27B", "answer_b_display": "Qwen 3.5 27B", "winner": "TIE", "verdict_code": "TIE", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-2/verdicts/q77__Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__vs__Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL.json" }, "deepseek-claude": { "key": "deepseek-claude", "label": "DeepSeek vs Claude", "first": "deepseek", "second": "claude", "status": "tie", "result": "Functional tie", "short_result": "Tie", "basis": "Both answers direct counsel to protect Eleanor’s autonomy, suspend Marcus, compel an accounting and recovery of the $85,000, secure narrow emergency authority to pay the mortgage and home-care payroll, and obtain a decision-specific reassessment before adopting supported decision-making, replacement agency, or a limited conservatorship. Both oppose full guardianship, home sale, and placement on the present record, leaving Eleanor on the same materially correct and safe path.", "short_basis": "Both answers direct counsel to protect Eleanor’s autonomy, suspend Marcus, compel an accounting and recovery of the $85,000, secure narrow emergency authority to pay the mortgage and home-care payroll, and obtain a decision-specific reassessment before adopting supported decision-making, replacement agency…", "answer_a_was": "DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS", "answer_b_was": "claude-opus-5", "answer_a_display": "DeepSeek V4-Flash-0731", "answer_b_display": "Claude Opus 5", "winner": "TIE", "verdict_code": "TIE", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-2/verdicts/q77__DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS__vs__claude-opus-5.json" }, "deepseek-qwen35": { "key": "deepseek-qwen35", "label": "DeepSeek vs Qwen 3.5", "first": "deepseek", "second": "qwen35", "status": "local", "result": "DeepSeek win", "short_result": "DeepSeek win", "basis": "Answer B first seeks targeted orders suspending Marcus, preserving assets, and directing payment of the mortgage and payroll, using a temporary conservator only if necessary. Answer A instead recommends immediate appointment of a conservator despite the bank’s willingness to honor a narrower court order, unnecessarily exposing Eleanor to temporary loss of financial control. Exact difference. A recommends an “Emergency Temporary Conservatorship” as the primary remedy; B seeks transaction-specific orders first and conservatorship only in the alternative. Different conduct. A’s reader petitions to place specified finances under a conservator; B’s reader first petitions for direct bank payments and asset-preservation orders without transferring Eleanor’s authority. Concrete consequence. Under A’s path, Eleanor likely loses control over covered finances for up to 30 days; under B’s path, she retains control except for the transactions specifically protected. Record support. The bank will honor a court order, and governing rule 6 expressly recognizes protective orders directed to a particular asset or transaction. Material magnitude. Avoiding an unnecessary court-appointed fiduciary preserves Eleanor’s legal autonomy during an active capacity dispute. Likelihood. A expressly recommends and schedules the conservatorship petition, while B’s narrower order can meet the documented 12-day payment emergency. No safe neutralization by ordinary verification. Correcting A requires replacing its recommended remedy with the narrower protective-order sequence that A did not supply as the primary path.", "short_basis": "Answer B first seeks targeted orders suspending Marcus, preserving assets, and directing payment of the mortgage and payroll, using a temporary conservator only if necessary.", "answer_a_was": "Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_b_was": "DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS", "answer_a_display": "Qwen 3.5 27B", "answer_b_display": "DeepSeek V4-Flash-0731", "winner": "DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS", "verdict_code": "B", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-2/verdicts/q77__DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS__vs__Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL.json" }, "qwen35-claude": { "key": "qwen35-claude", "label": "Qwen 3.5 vs Claude", "first": "qwen35", "second": "claude", "status": "frontier", "result": "Claude win", "short_result": "Claude win", "basis": "Answer A immediately recommends appointing an emergency conservator, while Answer B first seeks a transaction-specific protective order directing payment of the mortgage and payroll without transferring Eleanor’s authority. Because the bank expressly will honor a court order and Rule 6 authorizes asset-specific protective orders, Answer B preserves Eleanor’s control while providing the same timely protection; conservatorship remains a fallback only if necessary. Exact difference. Answer A omits a transaction-specific protective order as the first judicial remedy and instead petitions immediately for an emergency temporary conservator. Different conduct. A’s reader seeks appointment of a fiduciary over specified funds; B’s reader first seeks a direct bank order while leaving Eleanor in control. Concrete consequence. Under A, Eleanor unnecessarily loses financial authority to a conservator for up to 30 days; under B, she retains that authority while her essential bills are paid. Record support. Rule 6 authorizes protective orders directed to particular assets or transactions, and the bank will honor a court order. Material magnitude. Appointment of a conservator alters Eleanor’s legal authority and autonomy—the central interest the least-restrictive requirement protects. Likelihood. A rational professional would seek the sufficient direct order because the record expressly confirms the bank will honor it and the deadlines permit expedited relief. No safe neutralization by ordinary verification. Supplying the omitted protective-order-first strategy would require reconstructing Answer A’s recommended sequence, not merely checking it.", "short_basis": "Answer A immediately recommends appointing an emergency conservator, while Answer B first seeks a transaction-specific protective order directing payment of the mortgage and payroll without transferring Eleanor’s authority.", "answer_a_was": "Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_b_was": "claude-opus-5", "answer_a_display": "Qwen 3.5 27B", "answer_b_display": "Claude Opus 5", "winner": "claude-opus-5", "verdict_code": "B", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-2/verdicts/q77__Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__vs__claude-opus-5.json" } }, "rejected_points": { "qwen38": 4, "deepseek": 5, "claude": 11, "qwen35": 5 }, "delivery_filter_matter": false }, { "qid": "q78", "number": 78, "series": "Series 2", "title": "The NORTHSTAR ARC Demand", "category": "Trademark", "matter_page": "matters/q78/index.html", "question_file": "evidence/series-2/questions/q78.md", "key_file": "evidence/series-2/keys/q78.md", "answers": { "deepseek": "evidence/series-2/answers/DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS/DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS__q78_r1.md", "claude": "evidence/series-2/answers/claude-opus-5/claude-opus-5__q78_r1.md", "qwen35": "evidence/series-2/answers/Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL/Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__q78_r1.md", "qwen38": "evidence/series-2/answers/Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL/Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__q78_r1.md" }, "reasoning": { "deepseek": "evidence/series-2/answers/DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS/DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS__q78_r1.reasoning.md", "qwen35": "evidence/series-2/answers/Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL/Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__q78_r1.reasoning.md", "qwen38": "evidence/series-2/answers/Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL/Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__q78_r1.reasoning.md" }, "pairings": { "qwen38-claude": { "key": "qwen38-claude", "label": "Qwen 3.8 vs Claude", "first": "qwen38", "second": "claude", "status": "tie", "result": "Functional tie", "short_result": "Tie", "basis": "Both answers deny liability, apply the supplied confusion factors, decline Northstar Arc’s demands, preserve defenses, and propose a controlled 30-day standstill discussion without committing to permanent changes. Ordinary verification removes Answer B’s unsupported characterizations, after which both place Cirrus on the same materially safe settlement path.", "short_basis": "Both answers deny liability, apply the supplied confusion factors, decline Northstar Arc’s demands, preserve defenses, and propose a controlled 30-day standstill discussion without committing to permanent changes.", "answer_a_was": "Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_b_was": "claude-opus-5", "answer_a_display": "Qwen 3.8 27B", "answer_b_display": "Claude Opus 5", "winner": "TIE", "verdict_code": "TIE", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-2/verdicts/q78__Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__vs__claude-opus-5.json" }, "qwen38-deepseek": { "key": "qwen38-deepseek", "label": "Qwen 3.8 vs DeepSeek", "first": "qwen38", "second": "deepseek", "status": "tie", "result": "Functional tie", "short_result": "Tie", "basis": "Both answers place Cirrus on the same material path: contest likely confusion without concessions, decline the demanded transfers, disclosures, destruction, and payment, preserve defenses, and propose a controlled 30-day standstill discussion concerning presentation and market separation. After ordinary verification rejects Answer A’s unsupported strength characterization, categorical treatment of the vendor inquiry, and disclosure of internal naming rationale, neither answer causes materially different conduct or consequences.", "short_basis": "Both answers place Cirrus on the same material path: contest likely confusion without concessions, decline the demanded transfers, disclosures, destruction, and payment, preserve defenses, and propose a controlled 30-day standstill discussion concerning presentation and market separation.", "answer_a_was": "DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS", "answer_b_was": "Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_a_display": "DeepSeek V4-Flash-0731", "answer_b_display": "Qwen 3.8 27B", "winner": "TIE", "verdict_code": "TIE", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-2/verdicts/q78__DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS__vs__Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL.json" }, "qwen38-qwen35": { "key": "qwen38-qwen35", "label": "Qwen 3.8 vs Qwen 3.5", "first": "qwen38", "second": "qwen35", "status": "tie", "result": "Functional tie", "short_result": "Tie", "basis": "Both answers place Cirrus on the same material path: reject the demanded relief without admissions, preserve defenses, distinguish the marks and offerings, and propose a controlled 30-day standstill discussion. Ordinary review would remove Answer B’s privileged-file reference and unsupported strength characterization before transmission, leaving no demonstrated difference in Cirrus’s legal, evidentiary, or negotiating position.", "short_basis": "Both answers place Cirrus on the same material path: reject the demanded relief without admissions, preserve defenses, distinguish the marks and offerings, and propose a controlled 30-day standstill discussion.", "answer_a_was": "Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_b_was": "Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_a_display": "Qwen 3.8 27B", "answer_b_display": "Qwen 3.5 27B", "winner": "TIE", "verdict_code": "TIE", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-2/verdicts/q78__Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__vs__Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL.json" }, "deepseek-claude": { "key": "deepseek-claude", "label": "DeepSeek vs Claude", "first": "deepseek", "second": "claude", "status": "tie", "result": "Functional tie", "short_result": "Tie", "basis": "After ordinary verification, both letters deny liability and the demanded relief, address the required confusion factors, preserve defenses and remedies, and propose a controlled 30-day standstill with counsel discussions regarding presentation and market separation. The visibly prohibited or unsupported language in Answer B can be deleted without reconstructing its analysis, leaving both readers on the same materially safe path.", "short_basis": "After ordinary verification, both letters deny liability and the demanded relief, address the required confusion factors, preserve defenses and remedies, and propose a controlled 30-day standstill with counsel discussions regarding presentation and market separation.", "answer_a_was": "claude-opus-5", "answer_b_was": "DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS", "answer_a_display": "Claude Opus 5", "answer_b_display": "DeepSeek V4-Flash-0731", "winner": "TIE", "verdict_code": "TIE", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-2/verdicts/q78__DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS__vs__claude-opus-5.json" }, "deepseek-qwen35": { "key": "deepseek-qwen35", "label": "DeepSeek vs Qwen 3.5", "first": "deepseek", "second": "qwen35", "status": "tie", "result": "Functional tie", "short_result": "Tie", "basis": "Both answers place Cirrus on the same material path: reject the demanded remedies, preserve all defenses, contest confusion under the supplied factors, and propose a controlled 30-day standstill for counsel discussions without permanent commitments. Ordinary review would remove the privileged-source assertions and unsupported overstatements before sending, leaving materially equivalent and safe responses.", "short_basis": "Both answers place Cirrus on the same material path: reject the demanded remedies, preserve all defenses, contest confusion under the supplied factors, and propose a controlled 30-day standstill for counsel discussions without permanent commitments.", "answer_a_was": "Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_b_was": "DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS", "answer_a_display": "Qwen 3.5 27B", "answer_b_display": "DeepSeek V4-Flash-0731", "winner": "TIE", "verdict_code": "TIE", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-2/verdicts/q78__DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS__vs__Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL.json" }, "qwen35-claude": { "key": "qwen35-claude", "label": "Qwen 3.5 vs Claude", "first": "qwen35", "second": "claude", "status": "tie", "result": "Functional tie", "short_result": "Tie", "basis": "After ordinary verification removes unsupported or privileged-file-derived statements, both readers reject the demanded cessation, transfer, destruction, disclosures, and payment; preserve defenses; and propose a controlled 30-day standstill and counsel discussion concerning full-mark presentation and market separation. No remaining difference changes Cirrus’s material legal, procedural, or operational position.", "short_basis": "After ordinary verification removes unsupported or privileged-file-derived statements, both readers reject the demanded cessation, transfer, destruction, disclosures, and payment; preserve defenses; and propose a controlled 30-day standstill and counsel discussion concerning full-mark presentation and…", "answer_a_was": "Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_b_was": "claude-opus-5", "answer_a_display": "Qwen 3.5 27B", "answer_b_display": "Claude Opus 5", "winner": "TIE", "verdict_code": "TIE", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-2/verdicts/q78__Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__vs__claude-opus-5.json" } }, "rejected_points": { "qwen38": 0, "deepseek": 9, "claude": 6, "qwen35": 6 }, "delivery_filter_matter": false }, { "qid": "q79", "number": 79, "series": "Series 2", "title": "The Marking Date and the Damages Window", "category": "Patent", "matter_page": "matters/q79/index.html", "question_file": "evidence/series-2/questions/q79.md", "key_file": "evidence/series-2/keys/q79.md", "answers": { "deepseek": "evidence/series-2/answers/DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS/DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS__q79_r1.md", "claude": "evidence/series-2/answers/claude-opus-5/claude-opus-5__q79_r1.md", "qwen35": "evidence/series-2/answers/Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL/Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__q79_r1.md", "qwen38": "evidence/series-2/answers/Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL/Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__q79_r1.md" }, "reasoning": { "deepseek": "evidence/series-2/answers/DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS/DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS__q79_r1.reasoning.md", "claude": "evidence/series-2/answers/claude-opus-5/claude-opus-5__q79_r1.reasoning.md", "qwen35": "evidence/series-2/answers/Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL/Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__q79_r1.reasoning.md", "qwen38": "evidence/series-2/answers/Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL/Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__q79_r1.reasoning.md" }, "pairings": { "qwen38-claude": { "key": "qwen38-claude", "label": "Qwen 3.8 vs Claude", "first": "qwen38", "second": "claude", "status": "tie", "result": "Functional tie", "short_result": "Tie", "basis": "Both answers place NovaTag on the same materially correct path: constructive notice began July 1, 2022, producing a 42-month, 84,000-unit window and $1,512,000 royalty, while the February 2023 start would yield $1,260,000 and forfeit $252,000. Both also correctly identify the March–June 2022 period as unrecoverable and worth $144,000.", "short_basis": "Both answers place NovaTag on the same materially correct path: constructive notice began July 1, 2022, producing a 42-month, 84,000-unit window and $1,512,000 royalty, while the February 2023 start would yield $1,260,000 and forfeit $252,000.", "answer_a_was": "Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_b_was": "claude-opus-5", "answer_a_display": "Qwen 3.8 27B", "answer_b_display": "Claude Opus 5", "winner": "TIE", "verdict_code": "TIE", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-2/verdicts/q79__Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__vs__claude-opus-5.json" }, "qwen38-deepseek": { "key": "qwen38-deepseek", "label": "Qwen 3.8 vs DeepSeek", "first": "qwen38", "second": "deepseek", "status": "tie", "result": "Functional tie", "short_result": "Tie", "basis": "Both answers establish July 1, 2022 as the first recoverable date and calculate the same 42-month, 84,000-unit window, $1,512,000 royalty, $252,000 incorrect-start loss, and $144,000 unrecoverable period. A competent professional receiving either answer would take the same materially correct action.", "short_basis": "Both answers establish July 1, 2022 as the first recoverable date and calculate the same 42-month, 84,000-unit window, $1,512,000 royalty, $252,000 incorrect-start loss, and $144,000 unrecoverable period. A competent professional receiving either answer would take the same materially correct action.", "answer_a_was": "DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS", "answer_b_was": "Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_a_display": "DeepSeek V4-Flash-0731", "answer_b_display": "Qwen 3.8 27B", "winner": "TIE", "verdict_code": "TIE", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-2/verdicts/q79__DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS__vs__Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL.json" }, "qwen38-qwen35": { "key": "qwen38-qwen35", "label": "Qwen 3.8 vs Qwen 3.5", "first": "qwen38", "second": "qwen35", "status": "tie", "result": "Functional tie", "short_result": "Tie", "basis": "Both answers direct NovaTag to claim damages from July 1, 2022 through expiration, yielding 42 months, 84,000 units, and $1,512,000 in royalties. They also correctly calculate the erroneous February 2023-start recovery, the resulting $252,000 loss, and the unrecoverable $144,000 pre-notice period.", "short_basis": "Both answers direct NovaTag to claim damages from July 1, 2022 through expiration, yielding 42 months, 84,000 units, and $1,512,000 in royalties. They also correctly calculate the erroneous February 2023-start recovery, the resulting $252,000 loss, and the unrecoverable $144,000 pre-notice period.", "answer_a_was": "Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_b_was": "Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_a_display": "Qwen 3.5 27B", "answer_b_display": "Qwen 3.8 27B", "winner": "TIE", "verdict_code": "TIE", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-2/verdicts/q79__Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__vs__Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL.json" }, "deepseek-claude": { "key": "deepseek-claude", "label": "DeepSeek vs Claude", "first": "deepseek", "second": "claude", "status": "tie", "result": "Functional tie", "short_result": "Tie", "basis": "Both answers place NovaTag on the same materially correct path: constructive notice began July 1, 2022, producing a 42-month, 84,000-unit window and $1,512,000 royalty. Both also correctly calculate $1,260,000 using the erroneous February 1, 2023 start, a $252,000 loss, and $144,000 unrecoverable for March–June 2022.", "short_basis": "Both answers place NovaTag on the same materially correct path: constructive notice began July 1, 2022, producing a 42-month, 84,000-unit window and $1,512,000 royalty. Both also correctly calculate $1,260,000 using the erroneous February 1, 2023 start, a $252,000 loss, and $144,000 unrecoverable for…", "answer_a_was": "claude-opus-5", "answer_b_was": "DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS", "answer_a_display": "Claude Opus 5", "answer_b_display": "DeepSeek V4-Flash-0731", "winner": "TIE", "verdict_code": "TIE", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-2/verdicts/q79__DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS__vs__claude-opus-5.json" }, "deepseek-qwen35": { "key": "deepseek-qwen35", "label": "DeepSeek vs Qwen 3.5", "first": "deepseek", "second": "qwen35", "status": "tie", "result": "Functional tie", "short_result": "Tie", "basis": "Both answers direct NovaTag to claim damages from July 1, 2022 through December 31, 2025, totaling 42 months, 84,000 units, and $1,512,000. They also identically calculate the incorrect February 1, 2023 start as $1,260,000, the resulting loss as $252,000, and the unrecoverable March–June 2022 amount as $144,000.", "short_basis": "Both answers direct NovaTag to claim damages from July 1, 2022 through December 31, 2025, totaling 42 months, 84,000 units, and $1,512,000. They also identically calculate the incorrect February 1, 2023 start as $1,260,000, the resulting loss as $252,000, and the unrecoverable March–June 2022 amount as…", "answer_a_was": "Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_b_was": "DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS", "answer_a_display": "Qwen 3.5 27B", "answer_b_display": "DeepSeek V4-Flash-0731", "winner": "TIE", "verdict_code": "TIE", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-2/verdicts/q79__DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS__vs__Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL.json" }, "qwen35-claude": { "key": "qwen35-claude", "label": "Qwen 3.5 vs Claude", "first": "qwen35", "second": "claude", "status": "tie", "result": "Functional tie", "short_result": "Tie", "basis": "Both answers direct NovaTag to claim damages from July 1, 2022 through December 31, 2025, totaling 42 months, 84,000 units, and $1,512,000. They also correctly calculate the February 1, 2023 alternative at $1,260,000, the resulting $252,000 loss, and the unrecoverable March–June 2022 amount at $144,000.", "short_basis": "Both answers direct NovaTag to claim damages from July 1, 2022 through December 31, 2025, totaling 42 months, 84,000 units, and $1,512,000. They also correctly calculate the February 1, 2023 alternative at $1,260,000, the resulting $252,000 loss, and the unrecoverable March–June 2022 amount at $144,000.", "answer_a_was": "claude-opus-5", "answer_b_was": "Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_a_display": "Claude Opus 5", "answer_b_display": "Qwen 3.5 27B", "winner": "TIE", "verdict_code": "TIE", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-2/verdicts/q79__Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__vs__claude-opus-5.json" } }, "rejected_points": { "qwen38": 0, "deepseek": 0, "claude": 4, "qwen35": 3 }, "delivery_filter_matter": false }, { "qid": "q80", "number": 80, "series": "Series 2", "title": "The Equipment, the Inventory, and the Late Notice", "category": "Secured transactions", "matter_page": "matters/q80/index.html", "question_file": "evidence/series-2/questions/q80.md", "key_file": "evidence/series-2/keys/q80.md", "answers": { "deepseek": "evidence/series-2/answers/DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS/DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS__q80_r1.md", "claude": "evidence/series-2/answers/claude-opus-5/claude-opus-5__q80_r1.md", "qwen35": "evidence/series-2/answers/Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL/Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__q80_r1.md", "qwen38": "evidence/series-2/answers/Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL/Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__q80_r1.md" }, "reasoning": { "deepseek": "evidence/series-2/answers/DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS/DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS__q80_r1.reasoning.md", "claude": "evidence/series-2/answers/claude-opus-5/claude-opus-5__q80_r1.reasoning.md", "qwen35": "evidence/series-2/answers/Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL/Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__q80_r1.reasoning.md", "qwen38": "evidence/series-2/answers/Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL/Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__q80_r1.reasoning.md" }, "pairings": { "qwen38-claude": { "key": "qwen38-claude", "label": "Qwen 3.8 vs Claude", "first": "qwen38", "second": "claude", "status": "tie", "result": "Functional tie", "short_result": "Tie", "basis": "Both answers place Precision first on the CNC line for $620,000, Atlas next for $30,000, and Atlas first on the inventory and identifiable proceeds for another $1,010,000. Both therefore allocate $620,000 to Precision and $1,040,000 to Atlas, leave deficiencies of $900,000 and $760,000 respectively, and require pre-receipt perfection and notice for future inventory shipments.", "short_basis": "Both answers place Precision first on the CNC line for $620,000, Atlas next for $30,000, and Atlas first on the inventory and identifiable proceeds for another $1,010,000. Both therefore allocate $620,000 to Precision and $1,040,000 to Atlas, leave deficiencies of $900,000 and $760,000 respectively, and…", "answer_a_was": "Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_b_was": "claude-opus-5", "answer_a_display": "Qwen 3.8 27B", "answer_b_display": "Claude Opus 5", "winner": "TIE", "verdict_code": "TIE", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-2/verdicts/q80__Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__vs__claude-opus-5.json" }, "qwen38-deepseek": { "key": "qwen38-deepseek", "label": "Qwen 3.8 vs DeepSeek", "first": "qwen38", "second": "deepseek", "status": "tie", "result": "Functional tie", "short_result": "Tie", "basis": "Both answers direct Precision to claim $620,000 from the CNC proceeds, concede Atlas’s priority in the inventory and identifiable cash proceeds, and calculate total recoveries of $620,000 for Precision and $1,040,000 for Atlas. Both leave Precision with a $900,000 inventory deficiency and Atlas with a $760,000 deficiency, while requiring pre-receipt perfection and notice for future inventory shipments.", "short_basis": "Both answers direct Precision to claim $620,000 from the CNC proceeds, concede Atlas’s priority in the inventory and identifiable cash proceeds, and calculate total recoveries of $620,000 for Precision and $1,040,000 for Atlas.", "answer_a_was": "DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS", "answer_b_was": "Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_a_display": "DeepSeek V4-Flash-0731", "answer_b_display": "Qwen 3.8 27B", "winner": "TIE", "verdict_code": "TIE", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-2/verdicts/q80__DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS__vs__Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL.json" }, "qwen38-qwen35": { "key": "qwen38-qwen35", "label": "Qwen 3.8 vs Qwen 3.5", "first": "qwen38", "second": "qwen35", "status": "tie", "result": "Functional tie", "short_result": "Tie", "basis": "Both answers direct Precision to claim $620,000 from the CNC proceeds, concede Atlas’s priority in the inventory and cash proceeds, and implement pre-receipt perfection and notice for future shipments. Both allocate $620,000 to Precision and $1,040,000 to Atlas, leaving deficiencies of $900,000 and $760,000 respectively.", "short_basis": "Both answers direct Precision to claim $620,000 from the CNC proceeds, concede Atlas’s priority in the inventory and cash proceeds, and implement pre-receipt perfection and notice for future shipments.", "answer_a_was": "Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_b_was": "Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_a_display": "Qwen 3.5 27B", "answer_b_display": "Qwen 3.8 27B", "winner": "TIE", "verdict_code": "TIE", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-2/verdicts/q80__Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__vs__Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL.json" }, "deepseek-claude": { "key": "deepseek-claude", "label": "DeepSeek vs Claude", "first": "deepseek", "second": "claude", "status": "tie", "result": "Functional tie", "short_result": "Tie", "basis": "Both answers place Precision first on the CNC line for $620,000, Atlas next for $30,000, and Atlas first on all $1,010,000 of inventory and cash proceeds because Precision’s notice was late. Both produce the same totals, deficiencies, litigation position, and requirement that future inventory notice precede delivery.", "short_basis": "Both answers place Precision first on the CNC line for $620,000, Atlas next for $30,000, and Atlas first on all $1,010,000 of inventory and cash proceeds because Precision’s notice was late.", "answer_a_was": "claude-opus-5", "answer_b_was": "DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS", "answer_a_display": "Claude Opus 5", "answer_b_display": "DeepSeek V4-Flash-0731", "winner": "TIE", "verdict_code": "TIE", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-2/verdicts/q80__DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS__vs__claude-opus-5.json" }, "deepseek-qwen35": { "key": "deepseek-qwen35", "label": "DeepSeek vs Qwen 3.5", "first": "deepseek", "second": "qwen35", "status": "tie", "result": "Functional tie", "short_result": "Tie", "basis": "Both answers put Precision on the same material path: claim $620,000 first priority in the CNC proceeds, concede Atlas’s priority in the inventory and cash proceeds, and ensure pre-receipt filing and notice for future shipments. Both allocate $620,000 to Precision and $1,040,000 to Atlas, leaving respective deficiencies of $900,000 and $760,000.", "short_basis": "Both answers put Precision on the same material path: claim $620,000 first priority in the CNC proceeds, concede Atlas’s priority in the inventory and cash proceeds, and ensure pre-receipt filing and notice for future shipments.", "answer_a_was": "DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS", "answer_b_was": "Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_a_display": "DeepSeek V4-Flash-0731", "answer_b_display": "Qwen 3.5 27B", "winner": "TIE", "verdict_code": "TIE", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-2/verdicts/q80__DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS__vs__Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL.json" }, "qwen35-claude": { "key": "qwen35-claude", "label": "Qwen 3.5 vs Claude", "first": "qwen35", "second": "claude", "status": "tie", "result": "Functional tie", "short_result": "Tie", "basis": "Both answers place Precision first on the CNC line, allocate $620,000 to Precision and the $30,000 surplus to Atlas, and place Atlas first on the inventory and proceeds for a total Atlas recovery of $1,040,000. Both leave Precision with a $900,000 deficiency and Atlas with a $760,000 deficiency, reject relation back, and require pre-receipt perfection and notice for future inventory super-priority.", "short_basis": "Both answers place Precision first on the CNC line, allocate $620,000 to Precision and the $30,000 surplus to Atlas, and place Atlas first on the inventory and proceeds for a total Atlas recovery of $1,040,000.", "answer_a_was": "claude-opus-5", "answer_b_was": "Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL", "answer_a_display": "Claude Opus 5", "answer_b_display": "Qwen 3.5 27B", "winner": "TIE", "verdict_code": "TIE", "judgment_file": "evidence/series-2/verdicts/q80__Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL__vs__claude-opus-5.json" } }, "rejected_points": { "qwen38": 1, "deepseek": 0, "claude": 8, "qwen35": 5 }, "delivery_filter_matter": false } ]