{
  "question": "q03",
  "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": 13241,
    "completion_tokens": 1338,
    "total_tokens": 14579,
    "cost": 0.1228925,
    "is_byok": false,
    "prompt_tokens_details": {
      "cached_tokens": 0,
      "cache_write_tokens": 13238,
      "audio_tokens": 0,
      "video_tokens": 0
    },
    "cost_details": {
      "upstream_inference_cost": 0.1228925,
      "upstream_inference_prompt_cost": 0.0827525,
      "upstream_inference_completions_cost": 0.04014
    },
    "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 VectorMotion on the same material path: treat design-defect and negligence exposure as substantial, reject superseding causation, allocate meaningful fault to Delta, SafePath, and Luis, pursue a global settlement and SafePath recovery, preserve evidence, limit use of the post-accident change, and implement fleet-wide safety measures. Their differences do not establish a concrete change in the client’s legal, financial, or safety position.\n\n[B] rejected: a rebuttable presumption may follow merely from prejudice — governing Rule 12 requires intent to deprive for an adverse inference.\n[A] rejected: VectorMotion knew the field was operating above 4 mph without barriers — record lacks evidence that VectorMotion knew Delta’s configuration.\n[A] rejected: a direct bulletin likely would have triggered a service visit and recalibration — record lacks evidence of Delta’s likely response.\n\nFailed candidates. Pre-sale warning adequacy characterization — different conduct failed.\nFailed candidates. Post-sale-warning causation confidence — different conduct failed.\nFailed candidates. Public cross-claim versus confidential SafePath tender — concrete consequence failed.\nFailed candidates. Spoliation-remedy forecasts — safely neutralized by ordinary verification.\nFailed candidates. Fault-percentage ranges — different conduct failed.\nFailed candidates. Expanded data-retention and safety-governance detail — record support for a different concrete outcome failed.\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"
    ]
  }
}