{
  "question": "q08",
  "model_1": "DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS",
  "model_2": "claude-opus-5",
  "answer_a_was": "claude-opus-5",
  "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": 12819,
    "completion_tokens": 1882,
    "total_tokens": 14701,
    "cost": 0.136575,
    "is_byok": false,
    "prompt_tokens_details": {
      "cached_tokens": 0,
      "cache_write_tokens": 12816,
      "audio_tokens": 0,
      "video_tokens": 0
    },
    "cost_details": {
      "upstream_inference_cost": 0.136575,
      "upstream_inference_prompt_cost": 0.080115,
      "upstream_inference_completions_cost": 0.05646
    },
    "completion_tokens_details": {
      "reasoning_tokens": 1439,
      "image_tokens": 0,
      "audio_tokens": 0
    }
  },
  "eval_prompt_sha256": "7e58b951cb86e4deba3b60fd01e9b9bd247ebe9883e1c9e43b24acffb1fd4667",
  "provenance_date": "2026-08-05",
  "report": "TIE, FUNCTIONALLY EQUIVALENT.\n\nBasis. Both answers direct BrightForge to seek remand because Leo has a colorable fraud claim, oppose arbitration for lack of assent, preserve the fraud and consumer-protection theories, and treat contract recovery as sharply limited and Orbit’s negligence claim as vulnerable. Unsupported additions in Answer A are safely rejected without changing that materially correct path.\n\n[A] rejected: service credits are likely a small five-figure sum — record lacks the service-credit formula.\n[A] rejected: consumer-protection relief commonly includes multiplied damages and attorney’s fees outside the cap — record lacks State A’s remedial provisions.\n[A] rejected: projected recoveries of $2–5 million or $5 million and up — record lacks damages proof and applicable damages rules.\n[A] rejected: State A enforcement is less mechanical and State C is hostile to the consumer-protection claim — record lacks facts or rules supporting those forum characterizations.\n[A] rejected: arbitration would typically eliminate multiplied damages and impose confidentiality — record lacks the arbitration clause’s remedial and confidentiality terms.\n\nFailed candidate: Different assessments of the forum clause’s reach to Orbit and Leo — concrete consequence failed because both recommend remand first and acknowledge later State A enforcement proceedings.\nFailed candidate: Answer A’s failure-of-essential-purpose fallback — record support failed because no governing rule or service-credit formula was supplied.\nFailed candidate: Different proposed amendments against Orbit — record support failed because the facts do not establish an Orbit misrepresentation, scienter, or an independent negligent-misrepresentation duty.\nFailed candidate: Different sequencing of Orbit’s personal-jurisdiction issue and transfer — likelihood failed because both predict remand before either issue is reached.\nFailed candidate: Answer A’s suggestion to seek removal fees — record support failed because the record does not establish objectively unreasonable removal.\nFailed candidate: Different confidence concerning contractual limits on fraud recovery — different conduct failed because both preserve and pursue uncapped fraud damages.\nFailed candidate: Different strength assigned to the consumer-protection claim against Leo — different conduct failed because both retain Leo and treat the claim as at least colorable.\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"
    ]
  }
}