{
  "question": "q10",
  "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": "A",
  "winner": "claude-opus-5",
  "judge_model": "openai/gpt-5.6-sol",
  "server_model": "openai/gpt-5.6-sol",
  "provider": "OpenAI",
  "finish_reason": "stop",
  "usage": {
    "prompt_tokens": 10927,
    "completion_tokens": 2207,
    "total_tokens": 13134,
    "cost": 0.1345,
    "is_byok": false,
    "prompt_tokens_details": {
      "cached_tokens": 0,
      "cache_write_tokens": 10924,
      "audio_tokens": 0,
      "video_tokens": 0
    },
    "cost_details": {
      "upstream_inference_cost": 0.1345,
      "upstream_inference_prompt_cost": 0.06829,
      "upstream_inference_completions_cost": 0.06621
    },
    "completion_tokens_details": {
      "reasoning_tokens": 1552,
      "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 an immediate, narrowly tailored injunction restoring historically permitted residential access while preserving the scope dispute; Answer B instead says to “halt litigation posture immediately” and pursue negotiation without distinguishing baseline access from full retreat access. Following B leaves Haven Ridge’s concededly valid easement physically blocked during negotiations, whereas A provides a supported route to restore lawful access without authorizing the contested retreat traffic.\n\nExact difference. A recommends an immediate motion limited to historical residential access; B recommends halting litigation and omits that narrower motion.\nDifferent conduct. A’s reader promptly seeks an order unlocking the gate for baseline use; B’s reader proceeds to mediation while the gate remains locked.\nConcrete consequence. Under A, Haven Ridge can regain access authorized by the recorded easement; under B, it remains completely unable to use that access pending voluntary agreement.\nRecord support. The deed grants access, Harris disputes scope rather than the easement’s existence, the road is locked, Rule 10 prohibits unreasonable self-help, and Rule 11 expressly favors feasible narrower relief.\nMaterial magnitude. Total denial of the parcel’s only practical access materially impairs Haven Ridge’s property and operational position.\nLikelihood. A rational professional would seek narrow relief now because the valid baseline right and total blockade make that motion materially stronger than a request for full retreat access.\nNo safe neutralization by ordinary verification. Correcting B requires devising the omitted baseline/full-access distinction and resulting injunction strategy despite B’s express instruction to halt litigation.\n\n[A] rejected: FHA accommodation theory and jurisdiction-specific timber, punitive-damages, fee, and right-to-farm propositions — record lacks controlling jurisdiction and authority.\n[A] rejected: numerical litigation and settlement probabilities — record lacks empirical or jurisdiction-specific inputs.\n[B] rejected: “approximately 36 trips per year” and “2,000% increase” — record contradicts these figures with six weekly trips and seventy daily trips.\n[B] rejected: potential liability “could bankrupt the LLC” and a $50,000–$100,000 settlement value — record lacks financial and valuation inputs.\n\nFailed candidate: Traffic-volume arithmetic — different conduct failed.\nFailed candidate: County classification as corroborative evidence rather than merely administrative permission — concrete consequence failed.\nFailed candidate: Anticipatory-nuisance characterization — different conduct failed because both recommend operational mitigation.\nFailed candidate: Road-work response and admission of liability — record support failed because no supplied evidentiary rule establishes prejudice from the proposed acknowledgment.\nFailed candidate: Redesigning to lower trip volume and investigating alternative access — concrete consequence failed because the record does not establish that either measure would produce approval or settlement.\nFailed candidate: Settlement-term differences — likelihood failed because no acceptance, valuation, or feasibility evidence establishes a different outcome.\nFailed candidate: Unsupported damages and success estimates — no safe neutralization failed because ordinary verification rejects them without changing the recommended material path.\n\nHard stop. Because Answer B omitted a narrow motion to restore concededly valid baseline access and instead said to halt litigation, the reader would likely negotiate without seeking immediate relief instead of moving to unlock the gate for historical residential use, causing Haven Ridge to experience continued total denial of its recorded access during negotiations.",
  "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"
    ]
  }
}