{
  "question": "q12",
  "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": 14971,
    "completion_tokens": 2479,
    "total_tokens": 17450,
    "cost": 0.167935,
    "is_byok": false,
    "prompt_tokens_details": {
      "cached_tokens": 0,
      "cache_write_tokens": 14968,
      "audio_tokens": 0,
      "video_tokens": 0
    },
    "cost_details": {
      "upstream_inference_cost": 0.167935,
      "upstream_inference_prompt_cost": 0.093565,
      "upstream_inference_completions_cost": 0.07437
    },
    "completion_tokens_details": {
      "reasoning_tokens": 2070,
      "image_tokens": 0,
      "audio_tokens": 0
    }
  },
  "eval_prompt_sha256": "7e58b951cb86e4deba3b60fd01e9b9bd247ebe9883e1c9e43b24acffb1fd4667",
  "report": "TIE, FUNCTIONALLY EQUIVALENT.\n\nBasis. Both answers put Kestrel on the same materially safe path: preserve evidence, stop further noncompliant distribution absent source compliance or a transition license, determine firmware derivation scope, resist cloud and repository-wide demands, pursue a protected audit and global settlement, and disclose the matter to the acquirer. Their different remediation sequencing and exposure estimates do not establish that either produces a better client outcome on the supplied record.\n\n[A] rejected: $0.3M–$2.6M exposure range and associated reserve — record lacks royalty, apportionment, deductible-cost, and violation-counting inputs.\n[B] rejected: $1.5M–$3.9M likely zone and $16.7M worst case — record lacks royalty, apportionment, deductible-cost, and violation-counting inputs.\n[A] rejected: $350,000–$600,000 opening offer and $750,000–$1.5M target — record lacks settlement-valuation inputs.\n[B] rejected: $500,000–$1.5M settlement target — record lacks settlement-valuation inputs.\n\nFailed candidates.\nDamages and reserve disparity — Different conduct failed; neither answer’s unsupported range establishes a distinct rational reserve or settlement decision.\nSource-first versus immediate replacement — Concrete consequence failed; the record does not establish firmware separability, so it cannot show whether replacement’s $180,000 cost is wasteful or necessary.\nFull-firmware risk characterization — Different conduct failed; both require technical mapping and resist disclosure unless derivation is established.\nAcquirer-disclosure timing — Concrete consequence failed; no LOI term, deadline, or closing event establishes harm from the timing difference.\nSettlement-offer sequencing — Concrete consequence failed; the record does not establish how Meadowlark would respond to either proposed range.\n\nHard stop. The sentence cannot be completed with a concrete, record-supported consequence showing that either answer materially improves Kestrel’s position over the other.",
  "judge_reasoning": "",
  "_public_record": {
    "type": "published record",
    "policy": "../../PUBLIC_RECORD_POLICY.md",
    "transformations": [
      "non-substantive machine metadata normalized",
      "published-record annotation added"
    ]
  }
}