{
  "question": "q12",
  "model_1": "DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS",
  "model_2": "claude-opus-5",
  "answer_a_was": "claude-opus-5",
  "answer_b_was": "DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS",
  "verdict_code": "B",
  "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": 14658,
    "completion_tokens": 2174,
    "total_tokens": 16832,
    "cost": 0.15682875,
    "is_byok": false,
    "prompt_tokens_details": {
      "cached_tokens": 0,
      "cache_write_tokens": 14655,
      "audio_tokens": 0,
      "video_tokens": 0
    },
    "cost_details": {
      "upstream_inference_cost": 0.15682875,
      "upstream_inference_prompt_cost": 0.09160875,
      "upstream_inference_completions_cost": 0.06522
    },
    "completion_tokens_details": {
      "reasoning_tokens": 1552,
      "image_tokens": 0,
      "audio_tokens": 0
    }
  },
  "eval_prompt_sha256": "7e58b951cb86e4deba3b60fd01e9b9bd247ebe9883e1c9e43b24acffb1fd4667",
  "provenance_date": "2026-08-05",
  "report": "ANSWER B IS MATERIALLY BETTER.\n\nBasis. Answer A treats a written source offer as sufficient and directs Kestrel to continue shipping for several days before publishing the source, although the supplied license requires recipients to be provided the complete corresponding source. Answer B instead directs Kestrel to stop distribution unless it actually provides compliant source or obtains a transition license, preventing additional unlicensed shipments and preserving its position against an injunction.\n\nProof — Exact difference. A states that “compliance is achieved by including the license text plus complete corresponding source (or a valid written offer for it)” and schedules publication for Days 5–10; B requires compliant source, a transition license, or cessation of distribution immediately.\nProof — Different conduct. A’s reader continues shipping devices during the pre-publication period with only a written offer; B’s reader either supplies the complete source, secures written authorization, or pauses shipments.\nProof — Concrete consequence. Under A, additional devices are distributed outside the license’s scope, creating further infringement acts and strengthening Meadowlark’s request for prospective injunctive relief; B avoids those additional acts.\nProof — Record support. The supplied license permits distribution “only if” recipients are provided the complete corresponding source and license; it contains no written-offer alternative, and those terms are expressly conditions.\nProof — Material magnitude. Additional infringement during an active claim affects liability, equitable relief, settlement leverage, and the pending acquisition.\nProof — Likelihood. A expressly says the written offer “stops the accrual clock” and directs implementation before actual publication, so a rational reader would continue shipments; B expressly identifies continued shipments as additional infringement.\nProof — No safe neutralization by ordinary verification. Rejecting A’s written-offer premise leaves no compliant interim shipping instruction and requires the reader to formulate the missing stop-or-provide-source course independently.\n\nFailed candidates. Full-firmware scope characterization — different conduct failed because both answers require a technical code map and resist disclosure absent actual incorporation or intertwining.\nFailed candidates. Copyright exposure ranges — record support failed because neither answer’s expected apportionment percentages or settlement values are supplied by the record.\nFailed candidates. CMI violation counting — record support failed because the supplied rule does not determine whether violations are counted per act, file, attribution element, or work.\nFailed candidates. Audit protocol detail — different conduct failed because both answers reject unrestricted repository access and propose a limited neutral audit.\nFailed candidates. Replacement and settlement sequencing — concrete consequence failed because both answers commence replacement, pursue settlement, and protect the proprietary code.\nFailed candidates. Acquisition treatment — different conduct failed because both answers require prompt disclosure, preservation, and remediation.\nFailed candidates. Injunction analysis — different conduct failed because both answers pursue compliance and oppose a blanket sales halt using substantially the same grounds.\n\nHard stop. Because Answer A said a written source offer satisfied the source condition before actual publication, the reader would likely continue shipping devices instead of providing the complete source, obtaining authorization, or pausing shipments, causing Kestrel to incur additional infringement acts and greater injunction exposure.",
  "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"
    ]
  }
}