{
  "question": "q04",
  "model_1": "Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL",
  "model_2": "Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL",
  "answer_a_was": "Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL",
  "answer_b_was": "Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL",
  "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": 12570,
    "completion_tokens": 2243,
    "total_tokens": 14813,
    "cost": 0.14584875,
    "is_byok": false,
    "prompt_tokens_details": {
      "cached_tokens": 0,
      "cache_write_tokens": 12567,
      "audio_tokens": 0,
      "video_tokens": 0
    },
    "cost_details": {
      "upstream_inference_cost": 0.14584875,
      "upstream_inference_prompt_cost": 0.07855875,
      "upstream_inference_completions_cost": 0.06729
    },
    "completion_tokens_details": {
      "reasoning_tokens": 1802,
      "image_tokens": 0,
      "audio_tokens": 0
    }
  },
  "eval_prompt_sha256": "7e58b951cb86e4deba3b60fd01e9b9bd247ebe9883e1c9e43b24acffb1fd4667",
  "report": "TIE, FUNCTIONALLY EQUIVALENT.\n\nBasis. Both answers direct the parties to litigate the prolongation, backpack, phone, warrant-scope, and Miranda issues, with the gun, phone evidence, unrelated photographs, and statements as the principal suppression targets. Both preserve a challenge to the medication through the prolongation and consent arguments and recommend negotiating around the remaining independent robbery evidence; their differing predictions do not demonstrate a different filing, lost claim, or concrete plea outcome.\n\n[A] rejected: the video contradicts Grant’s assertion — record lacks a view of the SUV at the exact moment it reached the stop line.\n[A] rejected: cannabis odor is categorically unavailable as a reasonable-suspicion factor — governing law says odor alone is insufficient.\n[A] rejected: officers’ ability to seek a vehicle warrant establishes inevitable discovery — cited governing rule requires an established lawful process, not speculation that a warrant could have been sought.\n[A] rejected: omission of the prior phone search establishes “fraud on the magistrate” — record lacks facts establishing intentional or reckless deception.\n[B] rejected: voluntary vehicle consent alone breaks the causal connection to an unlawful prolongation — record lacks an intervening event or other demonstrated causal break.\n\nFailed candidate: Initial-stop prediction — different conduct failed because both answers recommend litigating the stop while recognizing that the obstruction may allow the stop to survive.\nFailed candidate: Medication admissibility — different conduct failed because both answers preserve suppression based on unlawful prolongation and tainted consent.\nFailed candidate: Dog reliability — different conduct failed because both challenge the alert primarily as fruit of the prolonged detention.\nFailed candidate: Driver’s challenge to the backpack evidence — concrete consequence failed because both preserve the driver’s detention-based challenge while recognizing the passenger’s exclusive possessory claim.\nFailed candidate: Later-warrant analysis — different conduct failed because both recommend suppression based on prompting and tainted affidavit information while preserving the prosecution’s independent-source argument.\nFailed candidate: Plea leverage — concrete consequence failed because neither answer identifies a specific offer, charge disposition, or sentence that would differ solely because of its valuation.\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"
    ]
  }
}