{
  "question": "q06",
  "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": 14333,
    "completion_tokens": 1782,
    "total_tokens": 16115,
    "cost": 0.1430375,
    "is_byok": false,
    "prompt_tokens_details": {
      "cached_tokens": 0,
      "cache_write_tokens": 14330,
      "audio_tokens": 0,
      "video_tokens": 0
    },
    "cost_details": {
      "upstream_inference_cost": 0.1430375,
      "upstream_inference_prompt_cost": 0.0895775,
      "upstream_inference_completions_cost": 0.05346
    },
    "completion_tokens_details": {
      "reasoning_tokens": 1361,
      "image_tokens": 0,
      "audio_tokens": 0
    }
  },
  "eval_prompt_sha256": "7e58b951cb86e4deba3b60fd01e9b9bd247ebe9883e1c9e43b24acffb1fd4667",
  "report": "TIE, FUNCTIONALLY EQUIVALENT.\n\nBasis. Both answers direct LexCore toward the same material path: an immediate, narrow application protecting specifically identified secrets, preserving evidence, restricting solicitation only of material-contact customers, using targeted neutral forensics and expedited discovery, and abandoning the employment ban, blanket feature injunction, full-system imaging, and all-customer restriction. Their differences do not establish a materially different, safer outcome for LexCore.\n\n[A] rejected: roadmap access represented “~10% of workforce” — record lacks LexCore’s total workforce.\n[A] rejected: initial copying was undertaken “to take proprietary data to a competitor” — record lacks evidence establishing that purpose.\n[A] rejected: the 5:08 p.m. event reinforces “intent to steal” — record lacks evidence resolving the automated-synchronization explanation.\n[A] rejected: immediate “seizure” of Adrian’s devices — record lacks facts justifying seizure rather than preservation and neutral inspection.\n\nFailed candidate: B’s temporary exclusion of Adrian from the specific feature versus A’s no-use order — concrete consequence failed; the record does not establish what additional misuse the exclusion would prevent.\nFailed candidate: A’s stronger treatment of the 5:08 p.m. incident versus B’s qualified treatment — different conduct failed; both recommend preserving logs, pursuing the unauthorized-access claim, and investigating automation.\nFailed candidate: A’s negotiated feature cessation versus B’s audit-contingent product relief — likelihood failed; A presents cessation as a settlement goal, and the record does not show it would be obtained or pursued instead of targeted discovery.\nFailed candidate: differences in trade-secret categorization detail — different conduct failed; both focus relief on restricted evaluation, next-release, pricing, customer, and annotated materials while excluding public information and de-emphasizing the broadly accessible roadmap.\nFailed candidate: differences in forensic-protocol detail — different conduct failed; both ultimately recommend neutral, targeted examination rather than full imaging of Evidentia’s systems.\n\nHard stop. The required 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"
    ]
  }
}