{
  "question": "q01",
  "model_1": "DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS",
  "model_2": "claude-opus-5",
  "answer_a_was": "claude-opus-5",
  "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": 11623,
    "completion_tokens": 1396,
    "total_tokens": 13019,
    "cost": 0.11452,
    "is_byok": false,
    "prompt_tokens_details": {
      "cached_tokens": 0,
      "cache_write_tokens": 11620,
      "audio_tokens": 0,
      "video_tokens": 0
    },
    "cost_details": {
      "upstream_inference_cost": 0.11452,
      "upstream_inference_prompt_cost": 0.07264,
      "upstream_inference_completions_cost": 0.04188
    },
    "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 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.\n\n[A] rejected: estimated $250,000–$700,000 recovery and proposed $300,000–$400,000 retention — record lacks engineering, valuation, and incidental-damage amounts.\n[A] rejected: proposed settlement credits, payment bands, and ≥295-vpm protocol — record lacks valuation or evidence PrecisionFill would accept those terms.\n[B] rejected: proposed settlement under which LumaBio retains the entire $900,000 — record lacks damages sufficient to support that amount.\n\nFailed candidates.\nDisposition of the withheld installment — concrete consequence failed because the record does not establish whether releasing, escrowing, or retaining any particular amount leaves LumaBio financially better off.\nInterpretive use of the pre-contract email — different conduct failed because both readers preserve and use the email in litigating the 300-vpm term and fraud.\nClassification of overtime, temporary labor, and expedited shipping — concrete consequence failed because neither the amounts nor facts needed to classify and apportion them are supplied.\nSustained-performance settlement target — likelihood failed because no record evidence shows PrecisionFill would accept either proposed performance threshold.\nTelemetry remedies — concrete consequence failed because both reject an adverse inference absent intent and preserve lesser curative relief, with no proven prejudice establishing a different result.\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"
    ],
    "retained": [
      "substantive report",
      "verdict code",
      "winner mapping",
      "A/B assignment",
      "model and judge identifiers",
      "finish reason",
      "token counts",
      "provenance date"
    ]
  }
}