{
  "question": "q10",
  "model_1": "DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS",
  "model_2": "Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL",
  "answer_a_was": "DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS",
  "answer_b_was": "Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL",
  "verdict_code": "A",
  "winner": "DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS",
  "judge_model": "openai/gpt-5.6-sol",
  "server_model": "openai/gpt-5.6-sol",
  "provider": "OpenAI",
  "finish_reason": "stop",
  "usage": {
    "prompt_tokens": 10034,
    "completion_tokens": 2088,
    "total_tokens": 12122,
    "cost": 0.12534875,
    "is_byok": false,
    "prompt_tokens_details": {
      "cached_tokens": 0,
      "cache_write_tokens": 10031,
      "audio_tokens": 0,
      "video_tokens": 0
    },
    "cost_details": {
      "upstream_inference_cost": 0.12534875,
      "upstream_inference_prompt_cost": 0.06270875,
      "upstream_inference_completions_cost": 0.06264
    },
    "completion_tokens_details": {
      "reasoning_tokens": 1483,
      "image_tokens": 0,
      "audio_tokens": 0
    }
  },
  "eval_prompt_sha256": "7e58b951cb86e4deba3b60fd01e9b9bd247ebe9883e1c9e43b24acffb1fd4667",
  "provenance_date": "2026-08-05",
  "report": "ANSWER A IS MATERIALLY BETTER.\n\nBasis. Answer A directs Haven Ridge to seek a narrow preliminary injunction restoring permitted residential and emergency access while preserving the dispute over retreat operations. Answer B instead instructs counsel to “halt litigation posture immediately,” leaving the only practical access blocked during potentially unsuccessful negotiations despite Haven Ridge’s clear entitlement to some access.\n\nProof.\nExact difference. Answer B says “Halt litigation posture immediately” and omits a limited-injunction strategy; Answer A expressly recommends one against the locked gate.\nDifferent conduct. Under A, counsel promptly moves to unlock the gate or obtain keys for permitted and emergency access; under B, counsel pauses judicial action and negotiates while the gate remains locked.\nConcrete consequence. Under B, Haven Ridge remains unable to exercise its valid deeded access or reliably obtain emergency access during negotiations; under A, that access is judicially protected.\nRecord support. The deed grants an express easement, the farm road is the only practical access, Harris blocked it entirely, and governing law prohibits unreasonable self-help and permits narrower injunctive relief.\nMaterial magnitude. Continued exclusion deprives Haven Ridge of practical access to its land and creates operational and safety consequences, not merely a tactical disadvantage.\nLikelihood. B affirmatively directs counsel to halt litigation, and nothing in the record requires Harris to remove the gate during negotiations; A identifies a strong claim to limited access.\nNo safe neutralization by ordinary verification. Correcting B requires counsel to reject its affirmative strategy and construct the omitted narrow-injunction remedy.\n\n[B] rejected: “approximately 36 trips per year” — record says approximately six trips per week.\n[B] rejected: “2,000% increase in traffic volume” — record figures imply approximately an eighty-one-fold increase.\n[A] rejected: possible statutory or treble timber damages — record lacks any applicable timber-damages rule.\n[B] rejected: roadwork liability “could bankrupt the LLC” — record lacks Haven Ridge’s financial information.\n\nFailed candidates.\nTraffic arithmetic — different conduct failed; both reject full retreat access on the stated traffic burden.\nCounty-classification phrasing — different conduct failed; both treat zoning approval as noncontrolling.\nRoadwork-liability breadth — concrete consequence failed; both advise stopping further work and resolving Harris’s claims.\nAdmission-of-liability recommendation — concrete consequence failed; the record does not establish waiver, admissibility, or lost defenses from a settlement communication.\nRedesign omission — concrete consequence failed; the record does not establish that a smaller retreat would be viable or authorized.\nSettlement-term differences — record support failed; no supplied valuation supports particular payments, widths, or trip caps.\nNuisance analysis — different conduct failed; both recommend mitigation and negotiated operational restrictions.\n\nHard stop. Because Answer B omitted a limited preliminary-injunction strategy and directed counsel to halt litigation, the reader would likely negotiate while the gate remained locked instead of promptly seeking protected residential and emergency access, causing Haven Ridge to remain excluded from its only practical access route.",
  "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"
    ]
  }
}