{
  "question": "q09",
  "model_1": "DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS",
  "model_2": "Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL",
  "answer_a_was": "Qwen3.8-27B-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": 14733,
    "completion_tokens": 1362,
    "total_tokens": 16095,
    "cost": 0.1329375,
    "is_byok": false,
    "prompt_tokens_details": {
      "cached_tokens": 0,
      "cache_write_tokens": 14730,
      "audio_tokens": 0,
      "video_tokens": 0
    },
    "cost_details": {
      "upstream_inference_cost": 0.1329375,
      "upstream_inference_prompt_cost": 0.0920775,
      "upstream_inference_completions_cost": 0.04086
    },
    "completion_tokens_details": {
      "reasoning_tokens": 1034,
      "image_tokens": 0,
      "audio_tokens": 0
    }
  },
  "eval_prompt_sha256": "7e58b951cb86e4deba3b60fd01e9b9bd247ebe9883e1c9e43b24acffb1fd4667",
  "report": "TIE, FUNCTIONALLY EQUIVALENT.\n\nBasis. Both answers place Northstar on the same material path: concede the preservation failures, investigate replacement sources, offer targeted remediation and reasonable curative costs, oppose an adverse inference absent intent, resist blanket phone imaging and outside-counsel testimony, and enforce the clawback. Their differing assessments of prejudice, monetary sanctions, and the general counsel’s deposition do not establish different concrete outcomes on the present record.\n\n[B] rejected: dismissal or default analysis — record lacks a request for dismissal or default.\n[A] rejected: possible adverse inference against plaintiff for post-notice use — governing law supplies no basis for that remedy.\n\nFailed candidates. Monetary-sanctions posture — concrete consequence failed; both ultimately accept reasonable curative costs if legally supported.\nFailed candidates. General-counsel deposition posture — likelihood failed; both permit limited nonprivileged factual discovery, and the record does not establish whether alternatives will suffice.\nFailed candidates. Characterization of present prejudice — different conduct failed; both require recovery efforts before determining irreplaceability and prejudice.\nFailed candidates. Treatment of the vice president’s intent — different conduct failed; both oppose a current adverse inference while recognizing one may follow if intent is proven.\nFailed candidates. Strength of remedies for clawback violations — concrete consequence failed; both seek cessation, return or destruction, removal of prior uses, and possible sanctions.\nFailed candidates. Scope of targeted device discovery — different conduct failed; both prioritize the vice president’s device and expand only upon a particularized showing.\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"
    ]
  }
}