{
  "question": "q07",
  "model_1": "Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL",
  "model_2": "Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL",
  "answer_a_was": "Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL",
  "answer_b_was": "Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL",
  "verdict_code": "A",
  "winner": "Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL",
  "judge_model": "openai/gpt-5.6-sol",
  "server_model": "openai/gpt-5.6-sol",
  "provider": "OpenAI",
  "finish_reason": "stop",
  "usage": {
    "prompt_tokens": 12477,
    "completion_tokens": 2164,
    "total_tokens": 14641,
    "cost": 0.1428975,
    "is_byok": false,
    "prompt_tokens_details": {
      "cached_tokens": 0,
      "cache_write_tokens": 12474,
      "audio_tokens": 0,
      "video_tokens": 0
    },
    "cost_details": {
      "upstream_inference_cost": 0.1428975,
      "upstream_inference_prompt_cost": 0.0779775,
      "upstream_inference_completions_cost": 0.06492
    },
    "completion_tokens_details": {
      "reasoning_tokens": 1552,
      "image_tokens": 0,
      "audio_tokens": 0
    }
  },
  "eval_prompt_sha256": "7e58b951cb86e4deba3b60fd01e9b9bd247ebe9883e1c9e43b24acffb1fd4667",
  "report": "ANSWER A IS MATERIALLY BETTER.\n\nBasis. Answer A limits any continued Ardent representation to correction, preservation, and a truthful subpoena response, while prohibiting use of Samuel’s separate confidential statement to pursue Ardent’s claims against him. Answer B expressly permits the firm to use that admission to prove fraud for Ardent, exposing Samuel to increased liability through information obtained during the joint representation beyond what is necessary to remedy the prior false presentation.\n\nExact difference: B states that the firm “can use information relevant to the defense of Ardent (e.g., proving fraud occurred)”; A prohibits using Samuel’s separate statement against him beyond required remediation.\nDifferent conduct: Under A, a clean team corrects the document’s provenance through metadata and nonprivileged evidence and declines claims work using Samuel’s statement; under B, the lead partner may deploy that statement for Ardent.\nConcrete consequence: Samuel’s confidential admission is disclosed or used to establish his fraud, increasing his legal exposure and compromising confidentiality or privilege beyond the necessary correction.\nRecord support: Samuel made the statement privately; separate individual communications may remain confidential; Ardent cannot waive an individual’s privilege; disclosure is limited to what is reasonably necessary.\nMaterial magnitude: Use of an admission to prove fraud materially affects Samuel’s criminal, civil, and evidentiary position.\nLikelihood: B directly authorizes the use and continues the firm for Ardent while Ardent is evaluating claims against Samuel.\nNo safe neutralization by ordinary verification: Removing B’s authorization still leaves the reader to devise limits, staffing, and withdrawal boundaries that B did not supply consistently.\n\n[B] rejected: describing the deliberate post-subpoena edit as a “clerical and metadata error” — record contradicts this with Samuel’s admission that he intentionally edited the draft.\n[B] rejected: correction “minimizes personal liability for Nora/Samuel” — record lacks facts establishing that consequence.\n[B] rejected: silence violates Rule 5 — cited rule permits limited disclosure rather than independently requiring it; Rule 4 supplies the remedial duty.\n\nFailed candidates.\nGovernment-correction timing and core content — Different conduct failed; both promptly retract the contemporaneous-record characterization and disclose the post-subpoena editing and metadata.\nBoard-authority treatment — Concrete consequence failed; both follow the independent directors for emergency remediation without allowing the dispute to delay correction.\nNora’s immunity request — Different conduct failed; both withdraw and direct her to independent counsel.\nPreservation and subpoena production — Different conduct failed; both preserve and produce the altered draft, versions, metadata, and responsive nonprivileged materials.\nCalling all conflicts nonconsentable versus allowing limited screened Ardent work — Concrete consequence failed apart from the proven misuse of Samuel’s information.\n\nHard stop. Because Answer B said the firm could use Samuel’s confidential admission to prove fraud for Ardent, the reader would likely deploy that admission in Ardent’s defense or claims instead of limiting its use to necessary remediation, causing Samuel to experience increased legal exposure and loss of confidentiality or privilege.",
  "judge_reasoning": "",
  "_public_record": {
    "type": "published record",
    "policy": "../../PUBLIC_RECORD_POLICY.md",
    "transformations": [
      "non-substantive machine metadata normalized",
      "published-record annotation added"
    ]
  }
}