{
  "question": "q04",
  "model_1": "DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS",
  "model_2": "Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL",
  "answer_a_was": "Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL",
  "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": 10257,
    "completion_tokens": 2120,
    "total_tokens": 12377,
    "cost": 0.1277025,
    "is_byok": false,
    "prompt_tokens_details": {
      "cached_tokens": 0,
      "cache_write_tokens": 10254,
      "audio_tokens": 0,
      "video_tokens": 0
    },
    "cost_details": {
      "upstream_inference_cost": 0.1277025,
      "upstream_inference_prompt_cost": 0.0641025,
      "upstream_inference_completions_cost": 0.0636
    },
    "completion_tokens_details": {
      "reasoning_tokens": 1675,
      "image_tokens": 0,
      "audio_tokens": 0
    }
  },
  "eval_prompt_sha256": "7e58b951cb86e4deba3b60fd01e9b9bd247ebe9883e1c9e43b24acffb1fd4667",
  "provenance_date": "2026-08-05",
  "report": "TIE, FUNCTIONALLY EQUIVALENT.\n\nBasis. Both answers direct the defense to challenge the prolongation, vehicle and backpack searches, phone searches, warrant, and interrogations, while preserving the prosecution’s reasonable-suspicion, consent, dog-alert, independent-evidence, and waiver arguments. Their different weighting of the initial stop, dog reliability, standing, and plea posture does not establish different material conduct or outcomes; both place the parties on the same litigation and negotiation path.\n\n[A] rejected: inevitable discovery based on officers hypothetically seeking a vehicle warrant — record lacks an established lawful process that probably would have discovered the evidence.\n[A] rejected: “Franks suppression (fraud on the magistrate)” — record lacks facts establishing deliberate or reckless affidavit falsity.\n[A] rejected: pre-warning questioning may have been safety-related — record contradicts this with the detective’s express question about who planned the robbery.\n[B] rejected: likely noncustodial plea, diversion, time served, or cooperation immunity — record lacks sentencing ranges, charging policies, and negotiation facts.\n\nFailed candidate: Different predictions about initial-stop validity — Different conduct failed; both sides would litigate the obscured video and robbery-broadcast match.\nFailed candidate: Voluntary-but-tainted versus involuntary consent — Concrete consequence failed; both conclude the consent probably cannot support the vehicle search.\nFailed candidate: Different assessments of the dog’s reliability — Concrete consequence failed; both treat the alert as causally tainted by the extension.\nFailed candidate: Driver’s ability to suppress the backpack gun — Different conduct failed; both preserve suppression and admissibility arguments arising from the driver’s detention and lack of privacy in the bag.\nFailed candidate: Different warrant and Franks formulations — Different conduct failed; both seek suppression because the warrant application followed the unlawful phone review and relied on tainted evidence.\nFailed candidate: Different plea recommendations — Record support failed; the record does not establish available offers, sentencing exposure, or prosecutorial policy.\nFailed candidate: Answer A’s speculative inevitable-discovery argument — Different conduct failed after ordinary verification against the stated governing rule.\n\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"
    ]
  }
}