{
  "question": "q08",
  "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": 12546,
    "completion_tokens": 1323,
    "total_tokens": 13869,
    "cost": 0.11809875,
    "is_byok": false,
    "prompt_tokens_details": {
      "cached_tokens": 0,
      "cache_write_tokens": 12543,
      "audio_tokens": 0,
      "video_tokens": 0
    },
    "cost_details": {
      "upstream_inference_cost": 0.11809875,
      "upstream_inference_prompt_cost": 0.07840875,
      "upstream_inference_completions_cost": 0.03969
    },
    "completion_tokens_details": {
      "reasoning_tokens": 983,
      "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 immediate remand because Leo has a colorable fraud claim defeating fraudulent joinder, oppose arbitration for lack of assent, and pursue fraud while treating contract damages as limited and Orbit’s negligence claim as vulnerable to the economic-loss rule. Their differences do not establish materially different conduct or a concrete, record-supported client outcome.\n\n[A] rejected: consumer-protection remedies commonly include multiplied damages and attorney’s fees outside contractual limits — record lacks State A’s remedial provisions.\n[A] rejected: projected recovery and settlement ranges — record lacks inputs supporting those valuations.\n[B] rejected: general fraud in the inducement may void the forum-selection clause — governing rule requires fraud directed specifically at the clause.\n[B] rejected: patch installation may have created a factory safety risk — record contains only economic loss and no safety-related facts.\n\nFailed candidates. Consumer-protection claim against Leo characterized as weak versus viable — Different conduct failed; both answers keep Leo based on the fraud claim.\nFailed candidates. Adding fraud or negligent-misrepresentation claims against Orbit — Record support failed; Orbit’s knowledge, representations, and scienter are not established.\nFailed candidates. Different forum-clause arguments — No safe neutralization failed; unsupported arguments are rejected directly under the supplied governing rule.\nFailed candidates. Service credits versus the $240,000 cap as the contract-only recovery — Concrete consequence failed; neither answer establishes which remedy provision controls or a different presently supported recovery.\nFailed candidates. Enhanced consumer-protection recovery and settlement valuation — Record support failed.\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"
    ]
  }
}