{
  "question": "q16",
  "model_1": "DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS",
  "model_2": "Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL",
  "answer_a_was": "Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL",
  "answer_b_was": "DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS",
  "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": 8550,
    "completion_tokens": 2092,
    "total_tokens": 10642,
    "cost": 0.11619375,
    "is_byok": false,
    "prompt_tokens_details": {
      "cached_tokens": 0,
      "cache_write_tokens": 8547,
      "audio_tokens": 0,
      "video_tokens": 0
    },
    "cost_details": {
      "upstream_inference_cost": 0.11619375,
      "upstream_inference_prompt_cost": 0.05343375,
      "upstream_inference_completions_cost": 0.06276
    },
    "completion_tokens_details": {
      "reasoning_tokens": 1725,
      "image_tokens": 0,
      "audio_tokens": 0
    }
  },
  "eval_prompt_sha256": "7e58b951cb86e4deba3b60fd01e9b9bd247ebe9883e1c9e43b24acffb1fd4667",
  "provenance_date": "2026-08-05",
  "report": "TIE, FUNCTIONALLY EQUIVALENT.\n\nBasis. Both answers put Alderpoint on the same material path: preserve evidence, contain the incident, engage counsel-directed forensics, notify the insurer, treat both datasets as acquired, coordinate client and individual notices, reject the CEO’s draft, defer ransom payment pending screening and consent, and disclose before signing. After verifying the unsupported resident-count assumptions, either reader can determine the regulator deadlines without reconstructing omitted legal analysis.\n\n[A] rejected: “>500 residents are affected (which is true here)” — record lacks employee and participant residency counts.\n[B] rejected: “employee data and participant data each clearly affect more than 500 residents” — record lacks employee and participant residency counts.\n\nFailed candidates. Acquirer disclosure within 24 hours versus before signing — concrete consequence failed; the record shows no harm from either timing so long as disclosure precedes certification.\nFailed candidates. Participant-notice allocation — record support failed; the governing contracts are not supplied, and both answers require client coordination.\nFailed candidates. Forensic-engagement architecture — different conduct failed; both direct a counsel-led litigation investigation separated from ordinary remediation to the extent practicable.\nFailed candidates. CEO-email redraft — different conduct failed; both stop the inaccurate email and substitute an accurate incident-and-investigation disclosure.\nFailed candidates. Preservation measures — different conduct failed; both halt destructive remediation, preserve available evidence, and image systems before further restoration.\nFailed candidates. Ransom procedures — different conduct failed; both recommend no immediate payment and require sanctions screening and written insurer consent.\nFailed candidates. Forty-five-day planning detail — concrete consequence failed; both require timely coordinated individual notices and continuing investigation.\n\nHard stop. The sentence cannot be completed with a concrete, record-supported consequence caused by either answer rather than the other.",
  "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"
    ]
  }
}