{
  "question": "q06",
  "model_1": "Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL",
  "model_2": "claude-opus-5",
  "answer_a_was": "claude-opus-5",
  "answer_b_was": "Qwen3.5-27B-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": 10297,
    "completion_tokens": 2399,
    "total_tokens": 12696,
    "cost": 0.1363225,
    "is_byok": false,
    "prompt_tokens_details": {
      "cached_tokens": 0,
      "cache_write_tokens": 10294,
      "audio_tokens": 0,
      "video_tokens": 0
    },
    "cost_details": {
      "upstream_inference_cost": 0.1363225,
      "upstream_inference_prompt_cost": 0.0643525,
      "upstream_inference_completions_cost": 0.07197
    },
    "completion_tokens_details": {
      "reasoning_tokens": 1935,
      "image_tokens": 0,
      "audio_tokens": 0
    }
  },
  "eval_prompt_sha256": "7e58b951cb86e4deba3b60fd01e9b9bd247ebe9883e1c9e43b24acffb1fd4667",
  "provenance_date": "2026-08-05",
  "report": "TIE, FUNCTIONALLY EQUIVALENT.\n\nBasis. Both answers place LexCore on the same material path: reject the requested employment ban, feature injunction, wholesale system imaging, and blanket customer restriction; preserve evidence; seek narrowly tailored use, disclosure, solicitation, and forensic relief; and pursue expedited discovery. Their different sequencing and characterization of disputed facts do not establish a concrete difference in LexCore’s legal, evidentiary, or strategic position.\n\n[A] rejected: an automated synchronization process would not selectively retrieve fourteen release-related files — record lacks synchronization configuration or logs.\n[A] rejected: Adrian’s customer statement disclosed roadmap-adjacent confidential information — record lacks evidence that LexCore’s postponed workflow plans were secret.\n[A] rejected: Evidentia’s delayed clean-room protocol implies recognition of risk — record lacks the protocol’s trigger or adoption rationale.\n[B] rejected: Adrian took the copied data to Evidentia — record lacks evidence that the drive or its contents reached Evidentia.\n[B] rejected: the 5:08 p.m. downloads prove intent to steal or ongoing unauthorized conduct — record lacks proof of Adrian’s personal initiation, knowledge of revocation, or continuing access.\n[B] rejected: Evidentia adopted the clean-room protocol after suspicion arose — record lacks evidence of what prompted adoption.\n\nFailed candidates. Immediate narrow TRO versus a short standstill-first sequence — concrete consequence failed because the record establishes neither Evidentia’s response nor either procedure’s outcome.\nInitial copying characterized as misappropriation versus legally ambiguous acquisition — different conduct failed because both readers would preserve and plead the viable confidentiality and narrowly supported misappropriation theories.\nDifferent treatment of the 5:08 p.m. downloads as proven misconduct versus a forensic dispute — different conduct failed after ordinary verification of attribution and automation.\nTargeted examination of Evidentia records versus obtaining those records through expedited discovery — concrete consequence failed because both paths seek the same development evidence and no loss is shown.\nDifferent assessments of irreparable harm — different conduct failed because both recommend only narrow protective relief.\nDifferent settlement objectives concerning Evidentia’s feature — likelihood failed because the record does not show that either negotiating position would alter release, settlement, or recovery.\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"
    ],
    "retained": [
      "substantive report",
      "verdict code",
      "winner mapping",
      "A/B assignment",
      "model and judge identifiers",
      "finish reason",
      "token counts",
      "provenance date"
    ]
  }
}