{
  "question": "q12",
  "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": 13292,
    "completion_tokens": 2221,
    "total_tokens": 15513,
    "cost": 0.14970125,
    "is_byok": false,
    "prompt_tokens_details": {
      "cached_tokens": 0,
      "cache_write_tokens": 13289,
      "audio_tokens": 0,
      "video_tokens": 0
    },
    "cost_details": {
      "upstream_inference_cost": 0.14970125,
      "upstream_inference_prompt_cost": 0.08307125,
      "upstream_inference_completions_cost": 0.06663
    },
    "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 Kestrel to release the low-value modified component, verify the interface boundary, and continue device shipments in compliance; Answer B treats unsupported firmware-wide disclosure as likely and orders an immediate shipment halt. That halt would unnecessarily sacrifice approximately $522,000 in gross profit over 20 days—or about $1.1 million over the stated six-week replacement period—and increase acquisition risk.\n\nProof.\nExact difference: Answer B says “a court likely finds them intertwined,” concludes source compliance is commercially fatal, and orders Kestrel to “immediately halt shipment”; Answer A limits release to derived files subject to an engineering map.\nDifferent conduct: A’s reader promptly verifies scope, provides the required component source and license, and continues shipping; B’s reader stops shipments pending replacement.\nConcrete consequence: Kestrel loses device sales and associated gross profit under B’s plan while preserving them under A’s plan.\nRecord support: The modified component alone reveals little competitive value, manufacturing can continue during replacement, annual device revenue is $28 million at a 34% margin, and no facts establish intimate intertwining.\nMaterial magnitude: The halt costs roughly $522,000 over 20 days or $1.1 million over six weeks, apart from transaction disruption.\nLikelihood: B expressly directs the halt now and allocates settlement authority on the premise that source compliance is impossible.\nNo safe neutralization by ordinary verification: Rejecting B’s unsupported intertwining inference does not supply its omitted compliant-shipping plan; the reader must reconstruct the remediation analysis and reverse the express halt recommendation.\n\n[B] rejected: likely firmware-wide intertwining from modification of OpenTrellis — record lacks architecture, incorporation, or interface-boundary facts.\n[B] rejected: $8.7 million relevant revenue and a 3–5% industry royalty — record lacks the calculation basis and comparable-license evidence.\n[B] rejected: severe per-device CMI multiplier risk — record lacks a rule treating distribution of each device as a separate removal violation.\n[B] rejected: replacement validation by Day 20 — record states replacement requires six weeks.\n[A] rejected: a written source offer alone satisfies the condition — supplied license requires providing complete corresponding source and contains no source-offer provision.\n\nFailed candidates.\nDamages-range difference — concrete consequence failed because the record does not establish the recoverable royalty, attributable-profit apportionment, CMI violation count, fee rules, or settlement price.\nAudit-detail difference — material magnitude failed because both answers reject unrestricted access and require a neutral, limited examination.\nInjunction-risk characterization — different conduct failed apart from the shipment-halt divergence proved above.\nSource-offer defect in Answer A — no safe neutralization failed because direct provision of the already-prepared source is apparent from the quoted condition and leaves A’s broader course unchanged.\nAcquirer-disclosure timing — different conduct failed because both answers require immediate disclosure.\n\nHard stop. Because Answer B treated firmware-wide disclosure as likely without supporting architecture facts and omitted the viable component-source cure, the reader would likely halt device shipments instead of providing the required derived-component source and continuing compliant sales, causing Kestrel to lose approximately $522,000 in gross profit over 20 days and potentially about $1.1 million over six weeks.",
  "judge_reasoning": "**Analyzing legal compliance issues**\n\nI’m considering the complications in establishing a settlement outcome with the possibility of overpayment by a higher authority. There's a candidate who fails due to a legal record, and A may have made a legal error. They believe a written source offer is sufficient, but the license clearly states the need to provide complete source code. A's practice of only including the offer may not comply with this. B halting shipments shows they’re being cautious, while A's actions raise concerns about whether recipients truly receive the necessary source.**Evaluating license compliance**\n\nI’m thinking that an ordinary verification against the license should ideally reject just the source offer. Could they land on a solution safely? A reader might need to ensure the actual source is provided, which seems like a simple fix. This checking of rules and adjusting might reject A's claim, but A suggests publishing, too. B’s halt is cautious but could be costly. A’s plan to release the source seems aimed at remediation, but the license's requirement to provide the source creates ambiguity. It's not entirely clear if online availability would qualify.",
  "_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"
    ]
  }
}