{
  "question": "q02",
  "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": 7574,
    "completion_tokens": 2865,
    "total_tokens": 10439,
    "cost": 0.13328375,
    "is_byok": false,
    "prompt_tokens_details": {
      "cached_tokens": 0,
      "cache_write_tokens": 7571,
      "audio_tokens": 0,
      "video_tokens": 0
    },
    "cost_details": {
      "upstream_inference_cost": 0.13328375,
      "upstream_inference_prompt_cost": 0.04733375,
      "upstream_inference_completions_cost": 0.08595
    },
    "completion_tokens_details": {
      "reasoning_tokens": 2588,
      "image_tokens": 0,
      "audio_tokens": 0
    }
  },
  "eval_prompt_sha256": "7e58b951cb86e4deba3b60fd01e9b9bd247ebe9883e1c9e43b24acffb1fd4667",
  "provenance_date": "2026-08-05",
  "report": "TIE, FUNCTIONALLY EQUIVALENT.\n\nBasis. Both answers direct Corvid toward early settlement based on high liability exposure, recognize that back pay, front pay, and fees fall outside the $300,000 cap, and recommend prospective process changes. Their differing settlement ranges and reinstatement positions would alter negotiating instructions, but the record does not establish Dana’s reservation price, reinstatement feasibility, or which approach would produce a materially better outcome for Corvid.\n\n[B] rejected: reinstatement would create hostile-work-environment claims and immediate retaliation — record lacks facts establishing future workplace conduct.\n[A] rejected: potential FMLA liquidated damages — supplied law does not establish that remedy or the facts required for it.\nFailed candidates. Settlement range — concrete consequence and likelihood failed because Dana’s response to either range is unknown.\nFailed candidates. Reinstatement recommendation — concrete consequence failed because the record does not establish whether Dana would accept reinstatement or whether reinstatement would improve or worsen Corvid’s position.\nFailed candidates. Differing total-exposure estimates — record support failed because future unemployment duration, mitigation, front-pay period, and fees are unspecified.\nFailed candidates. Corrective-process details — concrete consequence failed because both recommend materially similar preventive controls without a demonstrated different client outcome.\nHard stop. The required 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"
    ]
  }
}