{
  "question": "q01",
  "model_1": "DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS",
  "model_2": "Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL",
  "answer_a_was": "DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS",
  "answer_b_was": "Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL",
  "verdict_code": "TIE",
  "winner": "TIE",
  "judge_model": "openai/gpt-5.6-sol",
  "server_model": "openai/gpt-5.6-sol",
  "provider": "OpenAI",
  "finish_reason": "stop",
  "usage": {
    "prompt_tokens": 9622,
    "completion_tokens": 1445,
    "total_tokens": 11067,
    "cost": 0.10348375,
    "is_byok": false,
    "prompt_tokens_details": {
      "cached_tokens": 0,
      "cache_write_tokens": 9619,
      "audio_tokens": 0,
      "video_tokens": 0
    },
    "cost_details": {
      "upstream_inference_cost": 0.10348375,
      "upstream_inference_prompt_cost": 0.06013375,
      "upstream_inference_completions_cost": 0.04335
    },
    "completion_tokens_details": {
      "reasoning_tokens": 1034,
      "image_tokens": 0,
      "audio_tokens": 0
    }
  },
  "eval_prompt_sha256": "7e58b951cb86e4deba3b60fd01e9b9bd247ebe9883e1c9e43b24acffb1fd4667",
  "provenance_date": "2026-08-05",
  "report": "TIE, FUNCTIONALLY EQUIVALENT.\n\nBasis. 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.\n\n[A] rejected: acceptance certificate “forecloses” revocation — cited authority makes acceptance a prerequisite to revocation, while eight months’ use and no timely revocation independently defeat the remedy.\n[B] rejected: telemetry deletion supports an intent-based adverse inference — record identifies automatic overwriting and lacks evidence of intent to deprive.\n[A/B] rejected: LumaBio actually relied on the pre-contract promise — record establishes receipt but lacks proof of actual reliance and contains LumaBio’s contrary acknowledgment that the contract guaranteed only the 285-vial test.\n\nFailed candidates. Spoliation leverage — concrete-consequence element failed; ordinary verification removes the unsupported adverse-inference theory before action.\nFailed candidates. Classification of overtime, temporary labor, and expedited shipping — record-support element failed; their direct, incidental, or consequential character depends on facts not supplied.\nFailed candidates. Conditional versus completed acceptance — different-conduct element failed; both answers ultimately reject return-based remedies and pursue warranty relief.\nFailed candidates. Strength of the fraud claim — likelihood element failed; both preserve the claim while recognizing reliance, intent, and causation uncertainty.\nFailed candidates. Demand for 300 versus willingness to negotiate approximately 295 — concrete-consequence element failed; both recommend a negotiated engineering and financial resolution without establishing a different client outcome.\nFailed candidates. Degree of confidence in withholding — different-conduct element failed; both recommend continued temporary withholding coupled with specific notice and acknowledge payment-breach risk.\n\nHard stop. The sentence cannot be completed with a concrete, record-supported consequence because both answers place LumaBio on the same material course.",
  "judge_reasoning": "",
  "_public_record": {
    "type": "published record",
    "policy": "../../PUBLIC_RECORD_POLICY.md",
    "transformations": [
      "non-substantive machine metadata normalized",
      "published-record annotation added"
    ],
    "retained": [
      "substantive report",
      "verdict code",
      "winner mapping",
      "A/B assignment",
      "model and judge identifiers",
      "finish reason",
      "token counts",
      "provenance date"
    ]
  }
}