{
  "question": "q14",
  "model_1": "DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS",
  "model_2": "Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL",
  "answer_a_was": "DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS",
  "answer_b_was": "Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL",
  "verdict_code": "B",
  "winner": "Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL",
  "judge_model": "openai/gpt-5.6-sol",
  "server_model": "openai/gpt-5.6-sol",
  "provider": "OpenAI",
  "finish_reason": "stop",
  "usage": {
    "prompt_tokens": 5141,
    "completion_tokens": 3490,
    "total_tokens": 8631,
    "cost": 0.1368275,
    "is_byok": false,
    "prompt_tokens_details": {
      "cached_tokens": 0,
      "cache_write_tokens": 5138,
      "audio_tokens": 0,
      "video_tokens": 0
    },
    "cost_details": {
      "upstream_inference_cost": 0.1368275,
      "upstream_inference_prompt_cost": 0.0321275,
      "upstream_inference_completions_cost": 0.1047
    },
    "completion_tokens_details": {
      "reasoning_tokens": 3055,
      "image_tokens": 0,
      "audio_tokens": 0
    }
  },
  "eval_prompt_sha256": "7e58b951cb86e4deba3b60fd01e9b9bd247ebe9883e1c9e43b24acffb1fd4667",
  "report": "ANSWER B IS MATERIALLY BETTER.\n\nBasis. Answer B creates enforceable confidentiality, data-security, and Security Incident notification duties whose breaches receive the required supercap treatment. Answer A merely references unspecified confidentiality and data-security obligations absent from the supplied draft, leaving Bellhaven unable to execute it safely without adding the substantive protections the mandate requires.\n\nProof.\nExact difference: Answer A omits substantive confidentiality and data-security duties, while B supplies them in Section 9.4.\nDifferent conduct: Counsel receiving A must draft and negotiate those obligations before approval; counsel receiving B can approve the draft on this issue.\nConcrete consequence: Under A as drafted, Bellhaven lacks an express contractual claim for failure to safeguard its data, unauthorized disclosure, or failure to provide incident notice; B preserves those protections.\nRecord support: The vendor draft contains no such duties, and the assignment requires mandate-required language missing from the draft to be added within Sections 7–9.\nMaterial magnitude: Enforceable data protection and incident-notification rights materially affect Bellhaven’s legal, evidentiary, and operational position following a security event.\nLikelihood: Competent customer counsel would not treat cap references as substitutes for the underlying duties and would require corrective drafting before execution.\nNo safe neutralization: Verification reveals the omission but cannot cure it without drafting the substantive provisions Answer A should have supplied.\n\nFailed candidates.\n$4 million floor in A versus twice-fees cap in B — Record support failed because no fee amount establishes a different recovery ceiling.\nOne-year automatic renewal in A versus affirmative renewal in B — Concrete consequence failed because the record does not show nonrenewal, a missed notice, or resulting fees.\nDifferent Feedback licenses — Concrete consequence failed because both preserve Bellhaven’s ownership and grant only a license.\nA’s additional indemnified affiliates and personnel — Record support failed because no claim involving those parties is established.\n\nHard stop. Because Answer A omitted substantive confidentiality, data-security, and incident-notification duties, the reader would likely require corrective drafting instead of approving the clauses, causing Bellhaven otherwise to lack enforceable contractual protections for unauthorized data access, disclosure, and incident notice.",
  "judge_reasoning": "**Evaluating contract terms**\n\nI see that for A, there’s an auto-renew option for one year with a 180-day notice—no need to reduce that if we’re agreeing on it. Meanwhile, B’s lack of auto-renew is also fine. A concern here is about feedback: the customer owns it, but B states it may only be used as necessary for services.\n\nRegarding confidentiality and security, it seems A missed including firm obligations in the draft, which is important since the mandate specifies that vendor data security should be excluded from the usual cap.**Analyzing contractual obligations**\n\nI’m considering whether the current agreement’s three sections adequately cover confidentiality and security obligations. It seems there’s a significant omission since A lacks any substantive security or confidentiality duties. B appears to create enforceable responsibilities, which is critical.\n\nIf there aren't clear duties for A, clients might be left exposed without a remedy for breaches. I'm wondering if the mandate is just about excluding these duties from the cap or if it actually requires establishing them in the first place.",
  "_public_record": {
    "type": "published record",
    "policy": "../../PUBLIC_RECORD_POLICY.md",
    "transformations": [
      "non-substantive machine metadata normalized",
      "published-record annotation added"
    ]
  }
}