{
  "question": "q08",
  "model_1": "DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS",
  "model_2": "Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL",
  "answer_a_was": "Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL",
  "answer_b_was": "DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS",
  "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": 8713,
    "completion_tokens": 1397,
    "total_tokens": 10110,
    "cost": 0.0963625,
    "is_byok": false,
    "prompt_tokens_details": {
      "cached_tokens": 0,
      "cache_write_tokens": 8710,
      "audio_tokens": 0,
      "video_tokens": 0
    },
    "cost_details": {
      "upstream_inference_cost": 0.0963625,
      "upstream_inference_prompt_cost": 0.0544525,
      "upstream_inference_completions_cost": 0.04191
    },
    "completion_tokens_details": {
      "reasoning_tokens": 1034,
      "image_tokens": 0,
      "audio_tokens": 0
    }
  },
  "eval_prompt_sha256": "7e58b951cb86e4deba3b60fd01e9b9bd247ebe9883e1c9e43b24acffb1fd4667",
  "provenance_date": "2026-08-05",
  "report": "TIE, FUNCTIONALLY EQUIVALENT.\n\nBasis. Both readers would seek remand based on Leo’s viable fraud claim, oppose arbitration for lack of assent, anticipate likely enforcement of the State C forum clause, prioritize fraud over the contract-limited recovery, and treat Orbit’s negligence claim as vulnerable to the economic-loss rule. The disputed overstatements in Answer A are either directly rejected from the supplied record or do not establish a different concrete outcome.\n\n[A] rejected: fraud in the inducement may void the forum-selection clause — governing rule requires fraud directed specifically at the clause.\n[A] rejected: fraud or travel costs could effectively deny a meaningful day in court or establish strong public policy — record lacks facts supporting either exception.\n[A] rejected: consumer-protection claims are viable against all defendants — record lacks facts tying Orbit to the standardized course of deception.\n[A] rejected: a factory safety risk could establish Orbit’s independent duty — record contains no alleged safety risk.\n\nFailed candidates. Forum-clause strategy — concrete consequence failed; both readers anticipate likely enforcement in State C.\nFailed candidates. Contract recovery described as capped at $240,000 rather than limited to service credits — record support failed because the credit formula is absent, and both readers treat contract recovery as sharply limited.\nFailed candidates. Orbit consumer-protection liability — likelihood failed because Orbit’s participation in the standardized deception is not established.\nFailed candidates. Confidence that fraud permits recovery of the full $8 million — different conduct failed; both readers pursue fraud and require proof of causation and damages.\nFailed candidates. Negligent-misrepresentation amendment suggested only by Answer B — record support failed because the governing requirements and supporting communications are not supplied.\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"
    ]
  }
}