{
  "question": "q01",
  "model_1": "Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL",
  "model_2": "claude-opus-5",
  "answer_a_was": "Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL",
  "answer_b_was": "claude-opus-5",
  "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": 9924,
    "completion_tokens": 2200,
    "total_tokens": 12124,
    "cost": 0.12802125,
    "is_byok": false,
    "prompt_tokens_details": {
      "cached_tokens": 0,
      "cache_write_tokens": 9921,
      "audio_tokens": 0,
      "video_tokens": 0
    },
    "cost_details": {
      "upstream_inference_cost": 0.12802125,
      "upstream_inference_prompt_cost": 0.06202125,
      "upstream_inference_completions_cost": 0.066
    },
    "completion_tokens_details": {
      "reasoning_tokens": 1719,
      "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: 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.\n\n[A] rejected: adverse inference supported by the engineer chats — record lacks evidence that telemetry was overwritten with intent to deprive.\n[A] rejected: day-25 email invoked “all contractual remedies” — record states only that LumaBio was “considering all contractual and legal remedies.”\n[B] rejected: $250,000–$700,000 recovery range and proposed settlement figures — record lacks valuation, retrofit-cost, interest, and quantified incidental-damage evidence.\n[B] rejected: reciprocal fraud or negligent-misrepresentation counterclaim — record lacks a representation by LumaBio and supplies no governing rule for that claim.\n[B] rejected: possible fee exposure — record lacks a fee-shifting provision or applicable rule.\n\nFailed candidate: retaining the full $900,000 versus tendering or escrowing part — concrete consequence failed because recoverable damages are unquantified and the record does not establish whether escrow cures nonpayment or which position is financially superior.\nFailed candidate: treating 300 rather than 285 as the likely governing standard — different conduct failed because both recommend negotiating a defined sustained-performance cure while preserving both interpretations.\nFailed candidate: stronger reliance on fraud and spoliation leverage — no safe-neutralization element failed because ordinary verification reveals the reliance and intent deficiencies before action.\nFailed candidate: conducting a clean humidity-and-film test before escalation — concrete consequence failed because the existing record already includes compliant-condition underperformance and does not show that sequencing changes the outcome.\nFailed candidate: expressly directing LumaBio to issue its own litigation hold — record support failed because no likely loss of LumaBio evidence or resulting prejudice is demonstrated.\nFailed candidate: differing revocation analysis — different conduct failed because both advise proceeding as an accepting buyer rather than pursuing return of the line.\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"
    ]
  }
}