{
  "question": "q06",
  "model_1": "Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL",
  "model_2": "claude-opus-5",
  "answer_a_was": "Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL",
  "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": 16902,
    "completion_tokens": 2167,
    "total_tokens": 19069,
    "cost": 0.17064375,
    "is_byok": false,
    "prompt_tokens_details": {
      "cached_tokens": 0,
      "cache_write_tokens": 16899,
      "audio_tokens": 0,
      "video_tokens": 0
    },
    "cost_details": {
      "upstream_inference_cost": 0.17064375,
      "upstream_inference_prompt_cost": 0.10563375,
      "upstream_inference_completions_cost": 0.06501
    },
    "completion_tokens_details": {
      "reasoning_tokens": 1813,
      "image_tokens": 0,
      "audio_tokens": 0
    }
  },
  "eval_prompt_sha256": "7e58b951cb86e4deba3b60fd01e9b9bd247ebe9883e1c9e43b24acffb1fd4667",
  "report": "TIE, FUNCTIONALLY EQUIVALENT.\n\nBasis. Both answers direct LexCore away from the requested noncompete-like restraint, feature-wide injunction, wholesale imaging, and blanket customer ban, and toward prompt preservation, identified-secret protections, targeted forensics and discovery, and enforcement limited to material-contact customers. Their differences in TRO sequencing and temporary product-role restrictions do not establish a concrete, record-supported difference in client outcome.\n\n[A] rejected: the 5:08 downloads reinforce that Adrian was trying to retain product information — record lacks evidence that Adrian rather than an automated synchronization process initiated them.\n[B] rejected: an automated sync process would not selectively retrieve fourteen next-release files — record lacks synchronization settings, schedules, and forensic logs.\n[B] rejected: Adrian’s customer statement disclosed roadmap-adjacent confidential information — record lacks evidence that the postponed workflow problem was nonpublic.\n[B] rejected: copying to prohibited storage breached the confidentiality agreement on its face — record lacks the agreement’s operative terms.\n\nFailed candidates. Immediate narrow TRO versus first seeking a short standstill — concrete consequence failed because the record establishes neither Evidentia’s response nor the outcome of either procedure.\nFailed candidates. Temporary exclusion from the specific feature versus no work restriction — concrete consequence failed because the record does not establish whether exclusion would prevent misuse or merely impose an unnecessary restraint.\nFailed candidates. Different emphasis on feature-related irreparable harm — different conduct failed because both recommend withholding a feature-wide injunction pending targeted development-record discovery.\nFailed candidates. Different characterization of the initial copying and 5:08 downloads — different conduct failed because both separate authorized copying from post-revocation access and recommend forensic verification.\n\nHard stop. The sentence cannot be completed with a concrete, record-supported consequence.",
  "judge_reasoning": "**Analyzing legal recommendations**\n\nI need to identify the key differences in output regarding legal recommendations. A recommends an immediate TRO, while B prefers a negotiated standstill, which is meant to avoid adverse outcomes. I wonder if this difference in approach could lead to materially different consequences. The circumstances imply urgency, and B's suggestion seems defensible. A claims initial copying could indicate misappropriation, but B argues that a policy violation isn't automatically improper. There's ambiguity here, making it hard to reach a decisive conclusion.**Examining confidentiality breach claims**\n\nSo, A asserts that breaching confidentiality through \"copying and retention\" is likely, though specific contract details aren't provided. B claims this argument might be unsupported and could be rejected. A highlights that access at 5:08 was unauthorized even if automated, which supports a sense of urgency. Governing law indicates accessing after credential revocation is unauthorized, but attribution is unclear. A mentions cached credentials could complicate the claim, while both A and B are cautious about spoliation and its implications on proof. It seems there's no significant divergence in actions.**Evaluating trade secret claims**\n\nB claims that renewal forecasts likely qualify as trade secrets, even without full secrecy, while A emphasizes particularity. A's relief request includes a temporary ban on Adrian's participation in a specific feature pending audit, but B argues there shouldn't be work restrictions. I wonder if A's ban could be seen as a de facto work restriction. The need for concrete evidence of misappropriation is clear. It’s possible a court could allow a narrow quarantine, but B suggests a prohibition on use instead. This seems to highlight a significant conduct divergence.",
  "_public_record": {
    "type": "published record",
    "policy": "../../PUBLIC_RECORD_POLICY.md",
    "transformations": [
      "non-substantive machine metadata normalized",
      "published-record annotation added"
    ]
  }
}