{
  "question": "q06",
  "model_1": "DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS",
  "model_2": "Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL",
  "answer_a_was": "DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS",
  "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": 15468,
    "completion_tokens": 1406,
    "total_tokens": 16874,
    "cost": 0.13885125,
    "is_byok": false,
    "prompt_tokens_details": {
      "cached_tokens": 0,
      "cache_write_tokens": 15465,
      "audio_tokens": 0,
      "video_tokens": 0
    },
    "cost_details": {
      "upstream_inference_cost": 0.13885125,
      "upstream_inference_prompt_cost": 0.09667125,
      "upstream_inference_completions_cost": 0.04218
    },
    "completion_tokens_details": {
      "reasoning_tokens": 1034,
      "image_tokens": 0,
      "audio_tokens": 0
    }
  },
  "eval_prompt_sha256": "7e58b951cb86e4deba3b60fd01e9b9bd247ebe9883e1c9e43b24acffb1fd4667",
  "report": "TIE, FUNCTIONALLY EQUIVALENT.\n\nBasis. Both answers direct LexCore toward the same material course: an immediate narrow TRO focused on preservation, identified trade secrets, material-contact customer solicitation, targeted forensics, and expedited discovery, while abandoning the employment ban, blanket feature injunction, broad imaging, and all-customer restriction. Their differences do not establish a different concrete outcome after ordinary verification.\n\n[A] rejected: inclusion of all three identified customers in the proposed solicitation restraint — record lacks evidence that Adrian had material contact with each customer.\n[A] rejected: initial copying was “for reasons not tied to any stated work need” — record contradicts this with Adrian’s remote-work explanation.\n[A] rejected: potential fee exposure from an unsuccessful emergency application — record lacks an applicable fee-shifting rule.\n\nFailed candidate: General-roadmap trade-secret strength — different conduct failed; both answers prioritize restricted datasets and next-release information and reject a feature-wide injunction.\nFailed candidate: Restraining all three contacted customers — record support failed because material contact is not established for any identified customer.\nFailed candidate: Breadth of an adverse inference from the drive wipe — concrete consequence failed; both recommend pursuing spoliation relief, and the court determines the inference after examining intent.\nFailed candidate: B’s temporary exclusion of Adrian from the disputed feature pending audit — concrete consequence failed; both seek non-use, clean-room scrutiny, targeted forensics, and no general employment restraint.\nFailed candidate: Characterization of the 5:08 p.m. downloads — different conduct failed; both treat them as a potentially viable post-revocation claim requiring investigation of automated synchronization.\nFailed candidate: Strategic-risk details — different conduct failed; both recommend filing only a narrow emergency application.\n\nHard stop. The required sentence cannot be completed with a concrete, record-supported materially different consequence.",
  "judge_reasoning": "",
  "_public_record": {
    "type": "published record",
    "policy": "../../PUBLIC_RECORD_POLICY.md",
    "transformations": [
      "non-substantive machine metadata normalized",
      "published-record annotation added"
    ]
  }
}