{
  "question": "q07",
  "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": 8784,
    "completion_tokens": 3343,
    "total_tokens": 12127,
    "cost": 0.15518625,
    "is_byok": false,
    "prompt_tokens_details": {
      "cached_tokens": 0,
      "cache_write_tokens": 8781,
      "audio_tokens": 0,
      "video_tokens": 0
    },
    "cost_details": {
      "upstream_inference_cost": 0.15518625,
      "upstream_inference_prompt_cost": 0.05489625,
      "upstream_inference_completions_cost": 0.10029
    },
    "completion_tokens_details": {
      "reasoning_tokens": 3006,
      "image_tokens": 0,
      "audio_tokens": 0
    }
  },
  "eval_prompt_sha256": "7e58b951cb86e4deba3b60fd01e9b9bd247ebe9883e1c9e43b24acffb1fd4667",
  "provenance_date": "2026-08-05",
  "report": "TIE, FUNCTIONALLY EQUIVALENT.\n\nBasis. Both answers direct withdrawal from Samuel and Nora, prompt correction of the prior false characterization without initially disclosing their admissions, preservation of all versions and metadata, and a qualified subpoena production. Their differences do not establish that a competent professional would place any client on a materially different legal, evidentiary, or procedural path.\n\n[B] rejected: describing the deliberate alteration as a “clerical and metadata error” — record contradicts that characterization with Samuel’s admission.\n[B] rejected: treating the independent directors as unquestionably authorized until a court rules otherwise — record lacks governance rules and procedural facts resolving the disputed removal.\n[A] rejected: imaging Samuel’s devices before notifying him — record lacks facts establishing Ardent’s ownership, custody, or access authority over those devices.\n\nFailed candidates. Continued Ardent representation by the firm versus transfer of substantive work to new counsel — concrete consequence failed; the record does not establish a different client outcome from the proposed limited compliance role.\nFailed candidates. Samuel’s admission — different conduct failed; both answers’ initial correction relies on metadata and withholds the admission unless further disclosure becomes necessary.\nFailed candidates. Government-notification timing — concrete consequence failed; both answers require correction before the subpoena deadline.\nFailed candidates. Handling of the disputed removal — concrete consequence failed; the remedial duty and correction proceed regardless of the governance dispute.\nFailed candidates. Use of shared communications in Ardent’s dispute with Samuel — record support failed; the governing law states that shared joint-representation communications ordinarily are not privileged between joint clients.\n\nHard stop. The 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"
    ]
  }
}