{
  "question": "q06",
  "model_1": "DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS",
  "model_2": "claude-opus-5",
  "answer_a_was": "DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS",
  "answer_b_was": "claude-opus-5",
  "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": 11432,
    "completion_tokens": 1432,
    "total_tokens": 12864,
    "cost": 0.11440625,
    "is_byok": false,
    "prompt_tokens_details": {
      "cached_tokens": 0,
      "cache_write_tokens": 11429,
      "audio_tokens": 0,
      "video_tokens": 0
    },
    "cost_details": {
      "upstream_inference_cost": 0.11440625,
      "upstream_inference_prompt_cost": 0.07144625,
      "upstream_inference_completions_cost": 0.04296
    },
    "completion_tokens_details": {
      "reasoning_tokens": 1034,
      "image_tokens": 0,
      "audio_tokens": 0
    }
  },
  "eval_prompt_sha256": "7e58b951cb86e4deba3b60fd01e9b9bd247ebe9883e1c9e43b24acffb1fd4667",
  "provenance_date": "2026-08-05",
  "report": "TIE, FUNCTIONALLY EQUIVALENT.\n\nBasis. Both answers direct LexCore away from the requested employment ban, feature injunction, blanket customer restriction, and wholesale system imaging, and toward preservation, narrowly defined non-use and non-solicitation relief, targeted neutral forensics, and expedited discovery. Their principal difference—filing a narrow TRO immediately versus first seeking a brief negotiated standstill—does not establish a record-supported difference in client outcome because Evidentia’s response and any effect of that sequencing are unknown.\n\n[A] rejected: pricing models were access-limited to approximately 70 employees — record assigns that limit only to customer usage and renewal data.\n[A] rejected: the copying had no stated work-related reason — record states Adrian claimed he copied files to work from home because remote access was unreliable.\n[A] rejected: the cease-and-desist demanded destruction of the entire drive — record contains no such demand.\n[B] rejected: roadmaps were frequently discussed with customers, analysts, and prospects — record lacks those facts.\n[B] rejected: an automated synchronization process would not selectively retrieve the fourteen release files — record lacks the synchronization configuration or forensic evidence needed for that conclusion.\n[B] rejected: six weeks passed after Evidentia’s announcement — record states the announcement occurred six weeks after Adrian joined, not how much time then elapsed.\n\nFailed candidates. Immediate narrow TRO versus standstill-first sequencing — concrete consequence failed.\nFailed candidates. Different prioritization among the protectable trade-secret categories — different conduct failed.\nFailed candidates. Different confidence concerning the 5:08 p.m. unauthorized-access claim — different conduct failed.\nFailed candidates. Different characterization of irreparable harm — different conduct failed.\nFailed candidates. Seeking an adverse inference promptly versus principally using the wipe for leverage and forensic relief — concrete consequence failed.\nFailed candidates. Minor differences in proposed forensic and settlement terms — likelihood failed.\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"
    ]
  }
}