{
  "question": "q14",
  "model_1": "Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL",
  "model_2": "claude-opus-5",
  "answer_a_was": "claude-opus-5",
  "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": 6732,
    "completion_tokens": 3604,
    "total_tokens": 10336,
    "cost": 0.15019125,
    "is_byok": false,
    "prompt_tokens_details": {
      "cached_tokens": 0,
      "cache_write_tokens": 6729,
      "audio_tokens": 0,
      "video_tokens": 0
    },
    "cost_details": {
      "upstream_inference_cost": 0.15019125,
      "upstream_inference_prompt_cost": 0.04207125,
      "upstream_inference_completions_cost": 0.10812
    },
    "completion_tokens_details": {
      "reasoning_tokens": 3106,
      "image_tokens": 0,
      "audio_tokens": 0
    }
  },
  "eval_prompt_sha256": "7e58b951cb86e4deba3b60fd01e9b9bd247ebe9883e1c9e43b24acffb1fd4667",
  "report": "ANSWER B IS MATERIALLY BETTER.\n\nBasis. Answer A applies a supercap to purported “Data Security Obligations” but never imposes an affirmative safeguards or security-incident notification obligation on Vendor. Answer B supplies both covenants, giving Bellhaven enforceable security and notice rights rather than a cap governing obligations that the supplied agreement does not establish.\n\nProof (winner verdicts only).\nExact difference. Answer A omits an affirmative duty to maintain data-security safeguards and notify Bellhaven of security incidents; B Section 9.4 imposes both.\nDifferent conduct. The reader of Answer B can accept and enforce those covenants; the reader of Answer A must draft and add them before safely approving the agreement.\nConcrete consequence. Under A, Bellhaven lacks a contractual claim based solely on inadequate safeguards or delayed incident notice; under B, it has one, improving its legal and remedial position.\nRecord support. The vendor draft contains no security covenant, while the mandate expressly requires treatment of Vendor’s “data-security obligations” and directs that required language missing from the draft be added within these sections.\nMaterial magnitude. The omission leaves the expressly negotiated data-security supercap partly hollow and removes substantive protections the cap is intended to support.\nLikelihood. A rational customer-side professional would correct this omission now because the mandate specifically identifies Vendor data-security obligations as requiring enhanced treatment.\nNo safe neutralization by ordinary verification. Verification reveals the omission but cannot supply the missing safeguards and notice language without redrafting Answer A.\n\nFailed candidates. Customer indemnity retained only by A — concrete consequence failed because the record establishes no Customer Data infringement claim.\nFailed candidates. Automatic one-year renewal in A versus signed renewal in B — likelihood failed because the record shows no intended nonrenewal or missed-notice scenario.\nFailed candidates. A’s broader IP-indemnity beneficiaries and remedial measures — record support failed because no infringement circumstance requiring those additional protections is supplied.\nFailed candidates. A’s express recovery of incident-response costs — record support failed because no incident or disputed category of loss is supplied.\nFailed candidates. Different Feedback-license scope — different conduct failed because both preserve Customer ownership and permit Vendor use only by license.\n\nHard stop. Because Answer A omitted affirmative safeguards and security-incident notice obligations, the reader would likely add those covenants instead of approving the draft as written, causing Bellhaven to receive enforceable security and notification rights rather than a supercap untethered to substantive security duties.",
  "judge_reasoning": "",
  "_public_record": {
    "type": "published record",
    "policy": "../../PUBLIC_RECORD_POLICY.md",
    "transformations": [
      "non-substantive machine metadata normalized",
      "published-record annotation added"
    ]
  }
}