{
  "question": "q07",
  "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": 9404,
    "completion_tokens": 2232,
    "total_tokens": 11636,
    "cost": 0.12573125,
    "is_byok": false,
    "prompt_tokens_details": {
      "cached_tokens": 0,
      "cache_write_tokens": 9401,
      "audio_tokens": 0,
      "video_tokens": 0
    },
    "cost_details": {
      "upstream_inference_cost": 0.12573125,
      "upstream_inference_prompt_cost": 0.05877125,
      "upstream_inference_completions_cost": 0.06696
    },
    "completion_tokens_details": {
      "reasoning_tokens": 1869,
      "image_tokens": 0,
      "audio_tokens": 0
    }
  },
  "eval_prompt_sha256": "7e58b951cb86e4deba3b60fd01e9b9bd247ebe9883e1c9e43b24acffb1fd4667",
  "provenance_date": "2026-08-05",
  "report": "TIE, FUNCTIONALLY EQUIVALENT.\n\nBasis. Both readers preserve all evidence, stop use of the altered minutes, narrowly correct the government presentation, decline Nora’s immunity request, withdraw from conflicted substantive representations, protect individual confidences beyond necessary remediation, and transition the subpoena response to independent counsel. Their differences in sequencing, residual transitional work, privilege characterization, and forensic detail do not establish a different material outcome.\n\n[B] rejected: silence would cause the crime-fraud exception to “strip[] protection from firm communications” — record lacks a rule establishing blanket loss of privilege.\n\nFailed candidate — complete withdrawal versus Ardent residual remedial role: Different conduct failed; both limit the firm to correction, preservation, and transition rather than substantive advocacy.\nFailed candidate — correction wording and production mechanics: Concrete consequence failed; both withdraw the false characterization and preserve and produce responsive versions and metadata.\nFailed candidate — Samuel’s statement and crime-fraud characterization: Different conduct failed; neither answer initially discloses his admission, and both permit only disclosure necessary to remediate.\nFailed candidate — Nora receiving a short opportunity to approach the government first: Record support failed; no supplied fact establishes that she would act or obtain a materially better result.\nFailed candidate — renewed board ratification: Record support failed; no bylaws, notice facts, quorum facts, or governing corporate law establish that the existing instruction is ineffective.\nFailed candidate — imaging before notifying Samuel and Nora: Likelihood failed; the record shows no threatened destruction or facts establishing that the different timing changes preservation.\nFailed candidate — broader proposed disclaimer that the minutes should not evidence any board action: Concrete consequence failed; the record does not establish a resulting legal or investigative disadvantage.\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"
    ]
  }
}