{
  "question": "q11",
  "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": 11750,
    "completion_tokens": 1778,
    "total_tokens": 13528,
    "cost": 0.12677375,
    "is_byok": false,
    "prompt_tokens_details": {
      "cached_tokens": 0,
      "cache_write_tokens": 11747,
      "audio_tokens": 0,
      "video_tokens": 0
    },
    "cost_details": {
      "upstream_inference_cost": 0.12677375,
      "upstream_inference_prompt_cost": 0.07343375,
      "upstream_inference_completions_cost": 0.05334
    },
    "completion_tokens_details": {
      "reasoning_tokens": 1395,
      "image_tokens": 0,
      "audio_tokens": 0
    }
  },
  "eval_prompt_sha256": "7e58b951cb86e4deba3b60fd01e9b9bd247ebe9883e1c9e43b24acffb1fd4667",
  "report": "TIE, FUNCTIONALLY EQUIVALENT.\n\nBasis. Both answers direct Harborline to demand a full defense, independent counsel, and acceptance of the $950,000 demand with explicit notice of entire-judgment liability, while avoiding an unconsented settlement and preserving rights in any contribution agreement. Their additional differences do not establish a different, record-supported client outcome.\n\n[B] rejected: assertion that the case had been answered — record lacks any pleading-status facts beyond suit having been filed.\n[B] rejected: assertion that Harborline lacks financial capacity to satisfy an excess judgment — record states only that Harborline has $600,000 in liquid reserves.\n[B] rejected: insurer may fund under reservation and later pursue reimbursement — supplied rules contain no reimbursement right.\n[B] rejected: fracture may have resulted from a fall in a crowded, unstaffed exit area — record places the partially off-camera struggle in the parking lot and supplies no injury-mechanism finding.\n\nFailed candidates. B’s request for a 10–14 day extension — concrete consequence failed because the record does not establish that Teel would grant it.\nFailed candidates. B’s demand for the complete policy and endorsements — different conduct failed because both readers already demand settlement and preserve the same coverage challenge.\nFailed candidates. B’s additional contribution-agreement terms — record support failed because no supplied rule establishes that those added terms alter recovery.\nFailed candidates. B’s express consent-to-settlement wording — different conduct failed because A’s demand that the insurer accept the offer communicates the same authorization.\nFailed candidates. B’s Wednesday/Thursday timing specificity — different conduct failed because A likewise directs immediate action before Friday.\nFailed candidates. Differences in factual framing of the off-camera struggle — no safe neutralization failed because ordinary verification rejects unsupported mechanisms without changing the recommended conduct.\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"
    ]
  }
}