{
  "question": "q04",
  "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": 13764,
    "completion_tokens": 2008,
    "total_tokens": 15772,
    "cost": 0.14626125,
    "is_byok": false,
    "prompt_tokens_details": {
      "cached_tokens": 0,
      "cache_write_tokens": 13761,
      "audio_tokens": 0,
      "video_tokens": 0
    },
    "cost_details": {
      "upstream_inference_cost": 0.14626125,
      "upstream_inference_prompt_cost": 0.08602125,
      "upstream_inference_completions_cost": 0.06024
    },
    "completion_tokens_details": {
      "reasoning_tokens": 1637,
      "image_tokens": 0,
      "audio_tokens": 0
    }
  },
  "eval_prompt_sha256": "7e58b951cb86e4deba3b60fd01e9b9bd247ebe9883e1c9e43b24acffb1fd4667",
  "provenance_date": "2026-08-05",
  "report": "TIE, FUNCTIONALLY EQUIVALENT.\n\nBasis. Both answers place the parties on the same material path: uphold the initial stop as probable, litigate prolongation as the central issue, challenge the vehicle and backpack searches as derivative, suppress the warrantless phone review and out-of-scope photographs, and attack the statements under Miranda’s question-first rule. Both likewise recognize that the viable charges and plea leverage turn principally on the prolongation ruling, with no demonstrated difference in ultimate client outcome.\n\nFailed candidates. Initial-stop rationale and degree of confidence — different conduct failed; both professionals defend or challenge the stop on the same available grounds.\nFailed candidates. Cannabis-trained-dog issue identified only by A — record support failed; the record does not state whether the dog was trained to detect cannabis.\nFailed candidates. Driver’s challenge to the backpack-derived gun — different conduct failed; B still directs the driver to assert derivative suppression based on his unlawful detention.\nFailed candidates. Medication suppression forecast — different conduct failed; both treat the pills as surviving only if the extension and consent survive.\nFailed candidates. Residual probable cause for the later phone warrant — concrete consequence failed; both conclude independent source fails because the unlawful review prompted the warrant and inevitable discovery lacks an established process.\nFailed candidates. Additional voluntariness and Fourth Amendment theories for the confession — different conduct failed; both direct suppression of the post-warning confession and preservation of voluntariness arguments.\nFailed candidates. Passenger’s ownership statements — concrete consequence failed; the record does not show that litigating those statements changes any charge or suppression result.\nFailed candidates. Greater investigative and negotiation detail in A — record support failed; no supplied fact establishes that the additional proposed steps would produce admissible evidence or a different disposition.\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"
    ]
  }
}