{
  "question": "q10",
  "model_1": "Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL",
  "model_2": "claude-opus-5",
  "answer_a_was": "Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL",
  "answer_b_was": "claude-opus-5",
  "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": 16277,
    "completion_tokens": 1832,
    "total_tokens": 18109,
    "cost": 0.1566875,
    "is_byok": false,
    "prompt_tokens_details": {
      "cached_tokens": 0,
      "cache_write_tokens": 16274,
      "audio_tokens": 0,
      "video_tokens": 0
    },
    "cost_details": {
      "upstream_inference_cost": 0.1566875,
      "upstream_inference_prompt_cost": 0.1017275,
      "upstream_inference_completions_cost": 0.05496
    },
    "completion_tokens_details": {
      "reasoning_tokens": 1390,
      "image_tokens": 0,
      "audio_tokens": 0
    }
  },
  "eval_prompt_sha256": "7e58b951cb86e4deba3b60fd01e9b9bd247ebe9883e1c9e43b24acffb1fd4667",
  "report": "TIE, FUNCTIONALLY EQUIVALENT.\n\nBasis. Both answers place Haven Ridge on the same material path: treat full retreat access at 70 daily trips as unlikely under the express easement, stop unauthorized work, pursue narrowly restored lawful access, and negotiate a recorded expansion with compensation and operational limits while evaluating redesign or alternative access. Both also correctly treat zoning as noncontrolling, prescription and necessity as weak, and the road alterations as creating liability exposure.\n\n[B] rejected: numerical litigation and settlement probabilities — record lacks jurisdiction-specific authority, precedent, and empirical inputs.\n[B] rejected: Fair Housing Act accommodation theory — record lacks the governing federal rules and jurisdiction-specific authority.\n[B] rejected: statutory multiple tree damages, punitive damages, fee shifting, and right-to-farm protections — record lacks the relevant statutes and jurisdiction.\n[A] rejected: conversion, waste, and specific diminution-in-value remedies — record lacks the governing remedial law.\n\nFailed candidates.\nGate-relief urgency and certainty — different conduct failed; both lead counsel to seek limited restoration of lawful access rather than full retreat access.\nAnticipatory-nuisance characterization — different conduct failed; both lead to mitigation, evidence development, and treatment of projected farm interference as central to easement scope.\nNarrow prescriptive pleading in B — concrete consequence failed; the historical ancillary uses are already supportable under the express easement, and no additional right is shown to be preserved.\nImmediate remediation offer and litigation hold in B — concrete consequence failed; the record establishes no impending evidence loss or different liability outcome.\nSpecific 25–35-trip redesign target in B — record support failed; no supplied evidence establishes that threshold as legally permissible, operationally feasible, or financially viable.\nAdmission-agreement notifications in B — record support failed; the agreements’ terms and applicable consumer or contract rules are absent.\nSettlement-detail differences — concrete consequence failed; both recommend the same recorded expansion, compensation, traffic controls, maintenance obligations, and protection against blockage.\n\nHard stop. The sentence cannot be completed with a concrete, record-supported consequence because both answers would likely cause the reader to pursue the same materially safe litigation, remediation, redesign, and settlement strategy.",
  "judge_reasoning": "",
  "_public_record": {
    "type": "published record",
    "policy": "../../PUBLIC_RECORD_POLICY.md",
    "transformations": [
      "non-substantive machine metadata normalized",
      "published-record annotation added"
    ]
  }
}