{
  "question": "q13",
  "model_1": "DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS",
  "model_2": "Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL",
  "answer_a_was": "DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS",
  "answer_b_was": "Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL",
  "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": 4626,
    "completion_tokens": 3318,
    "total_tokens": 7944,
    "cost": 0.12844875,
    "is_byok": false,
    "prompt_tokens_details": {
      "cached_tokens": 0,
      "cache_write_tokens": 4623,
      "audio_tokens": 0,
      "video_tokens": 0
    },
    "cost_details": {
      "upstream_inference_cost": 0.12844875,
      "upstream_inference_prompt_cost": 0.02890875,
      "upstream_inference_completions_cost": 0.09954
    },
    "completion_tokens_details": {
      "reasoning_tokens": 2956,
      "image_tokens": 0,
      "audio_tokens": 0
    }
  },
  "eval_prompt_sha256": "7e58b951cb86e4deba3b60fd01e9b9bd247ebe9883e1c9e43b24acffb1fd4667",
  "provenance_date": "2026-08-05",
  "report": "TIE, FUNCTIONALLY EQUIVALENT.\n\nBasis. Both answers place the relevant custodians and VX-9 information under an immediate hold and direct technical intervention for the identified fixed and rolling deletion risks, including Bell’s devices, personal messaging, Slack, telemetry, shared drives, contractors, and vendor-hosted support data. The differences do not demonstrate that a competent reader would allow specific evidence to be lost or otherwise place the client on a materially different path.\n\n[B] rejected: October 24, 2023 and derivative calendar dates — record lacks any calendar date.\n[A/B] rejected: Bell’s laptop data is necessarily unique and irretrievable — record lacks backup and replaceability facts.\n\nFailed candidate: B’s 48-hour messaging-app collection deadline — different conduct failed because B separately requires immediate preservation and suspension of auto-deletion.\nFailed candidate: B’s omission of an express CRM vendor action — concrete consequence failed because the record identifies no CRM deletion schedule or foreseeable loss.\nFailed candidate: B’s omission of Jira and Git snapshots — likelihood failed because the record identifies no imminent deletion or overwrite of those systems.\nFailed candidate: B’s failure to name Marcus Bell as a hold recipient — concrete consequence failed because B directs preservation of his laptop and mailbox.\nFailed candidate: B’s lack of a separate Fenwick preservation notice — different conduct failed because B sends the hold to Fenwick and directs contractor preservation.\nFailed candidate: Different Slack, telemetry, shared-drive, and vendor deadlines — concrete consequence failed because both answers suspend the applicable deletion processes before any record-supported loss.\nFailed candidate: A’s placeholders and B’s missing acknowledgment attachment — concrete consequence failed because ordinary verification resolves these ministerial defects before sending.\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"
    ],
    "retained": [
      "substantive report",
      "verdict code",
      "winner mapping",
      "A/B assignment",
      "model and judge identifiers",
      "finish reason",
      "token counts",
      "provenance date"
    ]
  }
}