{
  "question": "q01",
  "model_1": "DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS",
  "model_2": "Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL",
  "answer_a_was": "Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL",
  "answer_b_was": "DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS",
  "verdict_code": "TIE",
  "winner": "TIE",
  "judge_model": "openai/gpt-5.6-sol",
  "server_model": "openai/gpt-5.6-sol",
  "provider": "OpenAI",
  "finish_reason": "stop",
  "usage": {
    "prompt_tokens": 15920,
    "completion_tokens": 789,
    "total_tokens": 16709,
    "cost": 0.12316625,
    "is_byok": false,
    "prompt_tokens_details": {
      "cached_tokens": 0,
      "cache_write_tokens": 15917,
      "audio_tokens": 0,
      "video_tokens": 0
    },
    "cost_details": {
      "upstream_inference_cost": 0.12316625,
      "upstream_inference_prompt_cost": 0.09949625,
      "upstream_inference_completions_cost": 0.02367
    },
    "completion_tokens_details": {
      "reasoning_tokens": 516,
      "image_tokens": 0,
      "audio_tokens": 0
    }
  },
  "eval_prompt_sha256": "7e58b951cb86e4deba3b60fd01e9b9bd247ebe9883e1c9e43b24acffb1fd4667",
  "report": "TIE, FUNCTIONALLY EQUIVALENT.\n\nBasis. 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.\n\nFailed candidates. Relative strength of the 300-vpm warranty and fraud claims — different conduct failed; both recommend the same negotiated resolution and litigation fallback.\nFailed candidates. Continue withholding versus moving the $900,000 to escrow — concrete consequence failed; both identify escrow and the record establishes no specific interest, forfeiture, or other loss from the difference.\nFailed candidates. Whether the acceptance certificate itself forecloses revocation — different conduct failed; both conclude rejection and revocation are unavailable.\nFailed candidates. Scope of possible telemetry sanctions — different conduct failed; both reject an adverse inference and preserve requests for lesser curative measures.\nFailed candidates. Proposed settlement treatment of the $900,000 — likelihood failed; the differing negotiation proposals do not establish a materially different probable outcome.\n\nHard stop. The sentence cannot be completed with a concrete, record-supported consequence.",
  "judge_reasoning": "",
  "_public_record": {
    "type": "published record",
    "policy": "../../PUBLIC_RECORD_POLICY.md",
    "transformations": [
      "non-substantive machine metadata normalized",
      "published-record annotation added"
    ]
  }
}