{
  "question": "q02",
  "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": 11012,
    "completion_tokens": 1368,
    "total_tokens": 12380,
    "cost": 0.10986125,
    "is_byok": false,
    "prompt_tokens_details": {
      "cached_tokens": 0,
      "cache_write_tokens": 11009,
      "audio_tokens": 0,
      "video_tokens": 0
    },
    "cost_details": {
      "upstream_inference_cost": 0.10986125,
      "upstream_inference_prompt_cost": 0.06882125,
      "upstream_inference_completions_cost": 0.04104
    },
    "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 direct Corvid away from a merits fight and toward early settlement or reinstatement with Dana’s accommodation, while preserving evidence and correcting accommodation and leave procedures. The differing exposure estimates, settlement ranges, and tactical details do not establish a materially safer or better client outcome on the supplied record.\n\n[A] rejected: assumed benefit values, litigation timeline, fee ranges, probability percentages, and aggregate exposure — record lacks those inputs.\n[A] rejected: possible uncapped state-law liability, supervisor liability, arbitration, and liquidated damages — record lacks jurisdictional facts, an arbitration agreement, and the applicable leave statute.\n[B] rejected: projected front-pay, fee, and total-exposure ranges — record lacks mitigation evidence, litigation timeline, and fee inputs.\n\nFailed candidates. Standalone unconditional reinstatement offer versus settlement-linked reinstatement — record support failed because the supplied law does not establish the asserted cutoff effect.\nFailed candidates. Different settlement authority and ranges — concrete consequence failed because the record does not establish what amount Dana would accept or which range produces a better financial result.\nFailed candidates. Different aggregate exposure estimates — record support failed because both depend on unstated timelines, fees, benefits, mitigation, and additional law.\nFailed candidates. Answer A’s additional investigation and position-statement steps — concrete consequence failed because no specific evidentiary or litigation outcome from those steps is established.\nFailed candidates. Different levels of detail in prospective policy reforms — record support failed because no future request or operational event establishes a different client consequence.\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"
    ]
  }
}