{
  "question": "q03",
  "model_1": "Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL",
  "model_2": "claude-opus-5",
  "answer_a_was": "Qwen3.8-27B-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": 17860,
    "completion_tokens": 2008,
    "total_tokens": 19868,
    "cost": 0.17186125,
    "is_byok": false,
    "prompt_tokens_details": {
      "cached_tokens": 0,
      "cache_write_tokens": 17857,
      "audio_tokens": 0,
      "video_tokens": 0
    },
    "cost_details": {
      "upstream_inference_cost": 0.17186125,
      "upstream_inference_prompt_cost": 0.11162125,
      "upstream_inference_completions_cost": 0.06024
    },
    "completion_tokens_details": {
      "reasoning_tokens": 1552,
      "image_tokens": 0,
      "audio_tokens": 0
    }
  },
  "eval_prompt_sha256": "7e58b951cb86e4deba3b60fd01e9b9bd247ebe9883e1c9e43b24acffb1fd4667",
  "report": "TIE, FUNCTIONALLY EQUIVALENT.\n\nBasis. Both answers place VectorMotion on the same material path: treat design and post-sale-warning exposure as substantial, reject superseding causation as the primary defense, pursue an early global settlement with SafePath participation, preserve contractual claims, and implement immediate fleet-safety measures. Their differences in allocation estimates, evidentiary tactics, and engineering emphasis do not demonstrate a different concrete outcome on the supplied record.\n\n[B] rejected: the distributor bulletin “never reached Delta” — record establishes only that VectorMotion did not send it directly to Delta.\n[B] rejected: VectorMotion knew the field was operating above 4 mph without barriers — record lacks manufacturer knowledge of Delta’s configuration.\n[B] rejected: SafePath is “fully collectible” — record lacks evidence of solvency, insurance, or collectible assets.\n[B] rejected: potential punitive exposure and a post-sale duty to remedy or recall — supplied governing law contains neither rule.\n\nFailed candidates. Joint-and-several-liability verification omitted by A — concrete consequence failed because the applicable allocation regime is not supplied.\nFailed candidates. Different fault percentages — different conduct failed; both recommend materially the same settlement range and allocation strategy.\nFailed candidates. Conceding feasibility by stipulation in B versus seeking exclusion and a limiting instruction in A — different conduct failed because A also treats feasibility as established and does not recommend disputing it.\nFailed candidates. Public versus confidential pursuit of SafePath — concrete consequence failed because the contract, agency status, insurance, and procedural consequences are not in the record.\nFailed candidates. Treatment of increased false stops from the higher threshold — concrete consequence failed because both recommend layered speed, interlock, braking, calibration, and detection improvements.\nFailed candidates. Different predicted spoliation remedies — different conduct failed because both reject an adverse inference absent intent, anticipate curative measures, and prescribe immediate preservation.\nFailed candidates. Different warning-causation assessments — different conduct failed because both use Delta’s known noncompliance as a defense while treating post-sale-warning exposure as substantial.\nFailed candidates. Different trial-risk wording — different conduct failed because both recommend early global settlement rather than trial.\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"
    ]
  }
}