{
  "question": "q13",
  "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": 5069,
    "completion_tokens": 2536,
    "total_tokens": 7605,
    "cost": 0.1077575,
    "is_byok": false,
    "prompt_tokens_details": {
      "cached_tokens": 0,
      "cache_write_tokens": 5066,
      "audio_tokens": 0,
      "video_tokens": 0
    },
    "cost_details": {
      "upstream_inference_cost": 0.1077575,
      "upstream_inference_prompt_cost": 0.0316775,
      "upstream_inference_completions_cost": 0.07608
    },
    "completion_tokens_details": {
      "reasoning_tokens": 2063,
      "image_tokens": 0,
      "audio_tokens": 0
    }
  },
  "eval_prompt_sha256": "7e58b951cb86e4deba3b60fd01e9b9bd247ebe9883e1c9e43b24acffb1fd4667",
  "report": "TIE, FUNCTIONALLY EQUIVALENT.\n\nBasis. Both answers put counsel on the same material path: immediately preserve the messaging-app data and Bell’s endpoint, suspend every identified deletion or overwrite process, preserve contractor and vendor-held materials, collect the relevant systems, and maintain a continuing hold without custodian self-selection. Their differences in priority labels, recipient mechanics, scope, and collection detail do not produce a demonstrated difference in preserved evidence or client outcome.\n\n[B] rejected: the messaging app has no server-side or backup copy, all messages older than seven days are gone, and every other exposure is merely scheduled — record lacks backup or historical-loss facts and identifies rolling Slack and telemetry deletion.\n[B] rejected: continued messaging-app loss risks an intent-to-deprive finding — record lacks facts supporting intent.\n[B] rejected: all-customer RMAs, component-supplier materials, physical units, and affected-line manufacturing custodians are necessarily in scope — record lacks facts connecting those materials or custodians to the dispute.\n\nFailed candidate: Different “most time-critical” designation — different conduct failed because both answers require messaging suspension and Bell-laptop protection today.\nFailed candidate: B’s separate letters to Bell and Fenwick rather than including them directly — concrete consequence failed because B directs those letters today and separately preserves Bell’s laptop, mailbox, and Fenwick materials.\nFailed candidate: A’s omission of validation-rig operators from the notice — concrete consequence failed because A directs Engineering Ops and IT to suspend overwriting and snapshot the telemetry within 24 hours.\nFailed candidate: B’s broader subject matter and custodian list — record support failed.\nFailed candidate: B’s forensic capture and workspace-wide Slack export versus A’s exports and targeted collections — concrete consequence failed because no evidence loss from A’s method is established.\nFailed candidate: B’s litigation holds on every custodian mailbox versus A’s express hold only on Bell’s scheduled-for-deletion mailbox — record support failed because no deletion risk for other mailboxes is supplied.\nFailed candidate: Different date formulations and acknowledgment deadlines — concrete consequence failed.\nFailed candidate: B’s requests to investigate recovery of already-deleted Slack data and search telemetry backups — likelihood failed because the record does not establish prior relevant loss requiring those steps.\n\nHard stop. The required 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"
    ]
  }
}