{
  "question": "q14",
  "model_1": "DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS",
  "model_2": "claude-opus-5",
  "answer_a_was": "claude-opus-5",
  "answer_b_was": "DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS",
  "verdict_code": "B",
  "winner": "DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS",
  "judge_model": "openai/gpt-5.6-sol",
  "server_model": "openai/gpt-5.6-sol",
  "provider": "OpenAI",
  "finish_reason": "stop",
  "usage": {
    "prompt_tokens": 6440,
    "completion_tokens": 3226,
    "total_tokens": 9666,
    "cost": 0.13702625,
    "is_byok": false,
    "prompt_tokens_details": {
      "cached_tokens": 0,
      "cache_write_tokens": 6437,
      "audio_tokens": 0,
      "video_tokens": 0
    },
    "cost_details": {
      "upstream_inference_cost": 0.13702625,
      "upstream_inference_prompt_cost": 0.04024625,
      "upstream_inference_completions_cost": 0.09678
    },
    "completion_tokens_details": {
      "reasoning_tokens": 2744,
      "image_tokens": 0,
      "audio_tokens": 0
    }
  },
  "eval_prompt_sha256": "7e58b951cb86e4deba3b60fd01e9b9bd247ebe9883e1c9e43b24acffb1fd4667",
  "provenance_date": "2026-08-05",
  "report": "ANSWER B IS MATERIALLY BETTER.\n\nBasis. Answer A alone imposes a Customer Data IP indemnity on Bellhaven and makes that obligation uncapped under Section 8.3, despite the mandate not authorizing this concession. Answer B leaves Bellhaven without that additional defense-and-indemnity exposure while still achieving the required vendor IP indemnity.\n\nProof (winner verdicts only).\nExact difference. Answer A Section 7.4 states, “Customer shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless Vendor” for specified Customer Data claims; Answer B contains no Bellhaven indemnity.\nDifferent conduct. Counsel using Answer A offers Bellhaven’s uncapped indemnity, while counsel using Answer B does not.\nConcrete consequence. If accepted, Bellhaven assumes defense-cost and damages liability under Answer A that it does not assume under Answer B.\nRecord support. The mandate requires Vendor’s IP indemnity, identifies permitted concessions, and directs the drafter not to introduce terms outside its scope; it does not authorize a Bellhaven indemnity.\nMaterial magnitude. Answer A Section 8.3 leaves the obligation uncapped, creating potentially substantial legal and financial exposure.\nLikelihood. A rational customer-side negotiator would not affirmatively offer an unauthorized, uncapped indemnity and would present Answer B’s position instead.\nNo safe neutralization by ordinary verification. Removing Section 7.4 and conforming Section 8.3 requires substantive redrafting, not verification.\n\nFailed candidates. Different nonrenewal notice periods — concrete consequence failed because the record does not establish that Bellhaven would seek nonrenewal or miss either deadline.\nFailed candidates. Answer B’s $4 million supercap floor — concrete consequence failed because the record does not establish whether twice the ordinary cap would fall below $4 million.\nFailed candidates. Answer A’s additional IP remedies and indemnity procedures — likelihood failed because the record does not show circumstances making those additions alter present conduct or outcome.\nFailed candidates. Differences in data-use definitions and opt-in mechanics — different conduct failed because both answers preserve Bellhaven’s ownership and prohibit cross-customer training or improvement without prior written opt-in.\n\nHard stop. Because Answer A added an uncapped Customer Data IP indemnity, the reader would likely offer Bellhaven’s defense-and-indemnity commitment instead of withholding it, causing Bellhaven to assume legal and financial exposure absent from Answer B.",
  "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"
    ]
  }
}