{
  "question": "q04",
  "model_1": "DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS",
  "model_2": "Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL",
  "answer_a_was": "Qwen3.8-27B-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": 12903,
    "completion_tokens": 2486,
    "total_tokens": 15389,
    "cost": 0.15522,
    "is_byok": false,
    "prompt_tokens_details": {
      "cached_tokens": 0,
      "cache_write_tokens": 12900,
      "audio_tokens": 0,
      "video_tokens": 0
    },
    "cost_details": {
      "upstream_inference_cost": 0.15522,
      "upstream_inference_prompt_cost": 0.08064,
      "upstream_inference_completions_cost": 0.07458
    },
    "completion_tokens_details": {
      "reasoning_tokens": 2070,
      "image_tokens": 0,
      "audio_tokens": 0
    }
  },
  "eval_prompt_sha256": "7e58b951cb86e4deba3b60fd01e9b9bd247ebe9883e1c9e43b24acffb1fd4667",
  "report": "TIE, FUNCTIONALLY EQUIVALENT.\n\nBasis. Both answers direct the defense to litigate the unlawful prolongation and resulting consent, dog-alert, vehicle, and backpack searches, while also challenging the warrantless phone review, later warrant, warrant scope, and interrogation. Although they predict different outcomes for the medication and jacket, both preserve the same suppression arguments and advise the prosecution to defend the same evidence; the record does not demonstrate that their differing predictions produce a concrete different result for either client.\n\n[B] rejected: detectives applied for the warrant only because they saw the messages — record establishes timing but not what prompted the decision.\n[B] rejected: the interrogation was a deliberate question-first strategy — record establishes the sequence but not deliberateness.\n[A] rejected: the handgun was plainly visible when the backpack was opened — record lacks facts describing how it was discovered.\n\nFailed candidates. Consent taint and admissibility of the medication and jacket — different conduct failed because both answers direct the defense to seek suppression and the prosecution to defend consent.\nFailed candidates. Dog alert and backpack-search rationale — different conduct failed because both answers recommend suppression litigation and predict suppression of the handgun.\nFailed candidates. Independent-source analysis — different conduct failed because both answers challenge the warrant and require proof that lawful evidence independently supported it.\nFailed candidates. Post-warning statements — different conduct failed because both answers recommend suppression based on the warn-later sequence and voluntariness.\nFailed candidates. Driver’s ability to challenge the backpack — concrete consequence failed because both identify the challenge as weaker or contested and preserve the broader prolongation claim.\nFailed candidates. Dismissal demand versus serious-charge negotiation — concrete consequence failed because the record supplies no plea offer, charging decision, or outcome showing that either posture changes the client’s position.\nFailed candidates. Franks hearing, immunity, conditional plea, and interlocutory-appeal suggestions — record support failed because the supplied law does not establish the availability or effect of those procedures.\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"
    ]
  }
}