{
  "question": "q12",
  "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": 19115,
    "completion_tokens": 2433,
    "total_tokens": 21548,
    "cost": 0.192455,
    "is_byok": false,
    "prompt_tokens_details": {
      "cached_tokens": 0,
      "cache_write_tokens": 19112,
      "audio_tokens": 0,
      "video_tokens": 0
    },
    "cost_details": {
      "upstream_inference_cost": 0.192455,
      "upstream_inference_prompt_cost": 0.119465,
      "upstream_inference_completions_cost": 0.07299
    },
    "completion_tokens_details": {
      "reasoning_tokens": 2070,
      "image_tokens": 0,
      "audio_tokens": 0
    }
  },
  "eval_prompt_sha256": "7e58b951cb86e4deba3b60fd01e9b9bd247ebe9883e1c9e43b24acffb1fd4667",
  "report": "TIE, FUNCTIONALLY EQUIVALENT.\n\nBasis. Both readers end on the same material path: treat device shipments as infringement, reject the cloud demand, determine firmware scope through technical review, release the covered source, pursue a narrow neutral audit and settlement, preserve evidence, and disclose the matter to the acquirer. After rejecting unsupported interim and monetary assumptions, neither answer demonstrates a different record-supported client outcome.\n\n[B] rejected: a written source offer permits continued shipments before source publication — the license requires providing recipients the complete corresponding source code and states no written-offer alternative.\n[B] rejected: CMI attorney-fee exposure — the record supplies no rule authorizing fees for that claim.\n[B] rejected: third-party-beneficiary claims by device purchasers — the record supplies no facts or rules supporting such claims.\n\nFailed candidates. Interim shipment procedure — element 7 failed: ordinary comparison with the quoted license neutralizes the written-offer advice before action, after which B’s reader proceeds to actual source publication.\nFailed candidates. Exposure and settlement ranges — element 4 failed: the record supplies no royalty comparables, apportionment percentage, CMI counting rule, defense-cost data, or settlement data establishing either answer’s figures.\nFailed candidates. Funding replacement immediately versus only if needed — element 3 failed: the record does not establish whether the $180,000 expenditure produces a net benefit or harm after the technical scope review.\nFailed candidates. Different audit sequencing and cost positions — element 3 failed: no concrete client consequence from those negotiating positions is established.\nFailed candidates. Different characterizations of injunction likelihood — element 2 failed: both prescribe prompt compliance and the same opposition to a sales-halting injunction.\n\nHard stop. The sentence cannot be completed with a concrete, record-supported consequence.",
  "judge_reasoning": "**Clarifying professional verification needs**\n\nI need to ensure we have a clear output with proof, especially regarding the seven lines. It seems the failed candidates have highlighted some issues, like shipment remediation and audit standalone. I want a concise summary, ideally fitting on one screen. There’s a notable difference in quotes regarding sales and actions requiring valid offers. I have to remember that the license explicitly requires a complete source, and additional distributions could lead to increased infringement risks.",
  "_public_record": {
    "type": "published record",
    "policy": "../../PUBLIC_RECORD_POLICY.md",
    "transformations": [
      "non-substantive machine metadata normalized",
      "published-record annotation added"
    ]
  }
}