{
  "question": "q01",
  "model_1": "Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL",
  "model_2": "Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL",
  "answer_a_was": "Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL",
  "answer_b_was": "Qwen3.8-27B-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": 14221,
    "completion_tokens": 1407,
    "total_tokens": 15628,
    "cost": 0.1310875,
    "is_byok": false,
    "prompt_tokens_details": {
      "cached_tokens": 0,
      "cache_write_tokens": 14218,
      "audio_tokens": 0,
      "video_tokens": 0
    },
    "cost_details": {
      "upstream_inference_cost": 0.1310875,
      "upstream_inference_prompt_cost": 0.0888775,
      "upstream_inference_completions_cost": 0.04221
    },
    "completion_tokens_details": {
      "reasoning_tokens": 1034,
      "image_tokens": 0,
      "audio_tokens": 0
    }
  },
  "eval_prompt_sha256": "7e58b951cb86e4deba3b60fd01e9b9bd247ebe9883e1c9e43b24acffb1fd4667",
  "report": "TIE, FUNCTIONALLY EQUIVALENT.\n\nBasis. 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.\n\nA rejected: assertion that the internal chat supports an adverse inference from telemetry deletion — record lacks intent to deprive LumaBio of the telemetry.\nA rejected: assertion that LumaBio signed in reliance on the email — record supplies no decision evidence beyond an internal note recognizing that the writing guaranteed only the 285 acceptance test.\nA rejected: categorical recovery of overtime, temporary labor, and expedited shipping as incidental damages — record lacks facts establishing each expense’s legal classification and causal basis.\n\nFailed candidate: different assessment of the 300-throughput breach — different conduct failed; both recommend asserting the claim while negotiating.\nFailed candidate: different assessment of fraud strength and reliance — concrete consequence failed; both preserve fraud as uncertain settlement leverage.\nFailed candidate: different telemetry-sanctions assessment — likelihood failed; the record shows automatic deletion and no intent to deprive.\nFailed candidate: different damages classification — record support failed; the facts do not establish how each expense would be classified or the recoverable amount.\nFailed candidate: continued withholding versus escrow or protected payment — concrete consequence failed; no payment deadline, interest term, seller demand, or effect of escrow is supplied.\nFailed candidate: conditional acceptance and failure of the repair remedy — different conduct failed; both reject immediate revocation and seek further cure or settlement.\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"
    ]
  }
}