{
  "question": "q06",
  "model_1": "DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS",
  "model_2": "Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL",
  "answer_a_was": "DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS",
  "answer_b_was": "Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL",
  "verdict_code": "A",
  "winner": "DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS",
  "judge_model": "openai/gpt-5.6-sol",
  "server_model": "openai/gpt-5.6-sol",
  "provider": "OpenAI",
  "finish_reason": "stop",
  "usage": {
    "prompt_tokens": 8863,
    "completion_tokens": 2044,
    "total_tokens": 10907,
    "cost": 0.11671,
    "is_byok": false,
    "prompt_tokens_details": {
      "cached_tokens": 0,
      "cache_write_tokens": 8860,
      "audio_tokens": 0,
      "video_tokens": 0
    },
    "cost_details": {
      "upstream_inference_cost": 0.11671,
      "upstream_inference_prompt_cost": 0.05539,
      "upstream_inference_completions_cost": 0.06132
    },
    "completion_tokens_details": {
      "reasoning_tokens": 1409,
      "image_tokens": 0,
      "audio_tokens": 0
    }
  },
  "eval_prompt_sha256": "7e58b951cb86e4deba3b60fd01e9b9bd247ebe9883e1c9e43b24acffb1fd4667",
  "provenance_date": "2026-08-05",
  "report": "ANSWER A IS MATERIALLY BETTER.\n\nBasis. Answer A recommends immediate preservation of all relevant Evidentia development records, repositories, communications, and logs, followed by a neutral, targeted examination of Adrian’s work device and relevant corporate systems. Answer B limits immediate preservation and forensic relief principally to Adrian’s personal devices, leaving the corporate evidence most likely to show use or independent development exposed to deletion or routine overwriting despite Adrian’s demonstrated destruction of evidence.\n\nProof (winner verdicts only).\nExact difference. A preserves and searches relevant Evidentia systems and repositories; B preserves and examines principally Adrian’s personal devices and expressly declines immediate corporate-system imaging.\nDifferent conduct. A’s reader seeks a targeted corporate preservation and neutral examination order now; B’s reader seeks personal-device seizure and waits for discovery concerning Evidentia’s systems.\nConcrete consequence. Under B’s course, repository history, access logs, communications, or clean-room implementation evidence may be deleted or overwritten before collection, degrading LexCore’s ability to prove use and obtain effective relief.\nRecord support. Adrian securely wiped the external drive after the cease-and-desist, immediately served as Evidentia’s product lead, and Evidentia’s final technical choices resemble LexCore’s experiments.\nMaterial magnitude. The corporate evidence may determine whether LexCore can prove misappropriation, defeat independent-development defenses, and secure injunctive relief.\nLikelihood. A rational emergency-litigation professional would seek preservation now because prior deliberate destruction and ongoing competitive development make delayed collection unsafe.\nNo safe neutralization by ordinary verification. Recognizing the omission does not supply the missing corporate-preservation scope and protected forensic protocol; the reader would have to construct A’s analysis.\n\n[B] rejected: the initial copy was knowingly made “to take proprietary data to a competitor” — record does not establish Adrian’s purpose.\n[B] rejected: the 5:08 p.m. access “reinforces the intent to steal data” and “proves ongoing unauthorized conduct” — record permits automated synchronization and disputed knowledge.\n\nFailed candidates. Certainty about the 5:08 p.m. access — different conduct failed because both answers seek logs and treat the incident as grounds for investigation.\nFailed candidates. Initial-copy intent characterization — different conduct failed because both answers pursue confidentiality and misappropriation claims.\nFailed candidates. A’s request for an adverse inference — concrete consequence failed because the record does not show that requesting it now changes the emergency outcome.\nFailed candidates. Customer-restriction wording — record support failed because Adrian’s material-contact customers are not identified.\nFailed candidates. B’s proposed negotiated feature cessation — concrete consequence failed because the record does not establish whether that demand would improve or impair settlement.\nFailed candidates. Roadmap trade-secret strength — different conduct failed because both answers preserve a qualified roadmap claim while prioritizing narrower-access data.\n\nHard stop. Because Answer B omitted immediate preservation and targeted examination of relevant Evidentia corporate systems and repositories, the reader would likely preserve and seize only Adrian’s personal devices instead of also protecting the corporate evidence, causing LexCore to experience avoidable loss or degradation of evidence needed to prove use of its trade secrets.",
  "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"
    ]
  }
}