{
  "question": "q16",
  "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": "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": 14442,
    "completion_tokens": 2398,
    "total_tokens": 16840,
    "cost": 0.16219875,
    "is_byok": false,
    "prompt_tokens_details": {
      "cached_tokens": 0,
      "cache_write_tokens": 14439,
      "audio_tokens": 0,
      "video_tokens": 0
    },
    "cost_details": {
      "upstream_inference_cost": 0.16219875,
      "upstream_inference_prompt_cost": 0.09025875,
      "upstream_inference_completions_cost": 0.07194
    },
    "completion_tokens_details": {
      "reasoning_tokens": 2018,
      "image_tokens": 0,
      "audio_tokens": 0
    }
  },
  "eval_prompt_sha256": "7e58b951cb86e4deba3b60fd01e9b9bd247ebe9883e1c9e43b24acffb1fd4667",
  "report": "TIE, FUNCTIONALLY EQUIVALENT.\n\nBasis. Both answers put Alderpoint on the same material path: treat employee acquisition as confirmed and participant acquisition as reasonably likely, preserve evidence, notify the insurer and clients promptly, track statutory notices, reject the CEO’s email, condition any ransom payment on screening and insurer consent, structure counsel-directed forensics, and disclose before signing. Their differences do not establish a materially different client outcome.\n\n[A] rejected: employee and participant breaches each necessarily affect 500 or more residents — record lacks resident counts and jurisdictional distribution.\n[B] rejected: a Saturday determination makes regulator notice due Monday — record lacks the determination time needed to calculate the precise 72-hour deadline.\nFailed candidates. Participant determination timing — concrete consequence failed; both answers require prompt determination and timely notice, with no demonstrated missed deadline.\nFailed candidates. Participant encryption-safe-harbor inquiry — record support failed; the record does not establish encryption at rest or uncompromised keys.\nFailed candidates. Regulator-threshold certainty — no safe neutralization failed; ordinary resident-count verification resolves the unsupported assertion before filing.\nFailed candidates. Forensic two-track structure — concrete consequence failed; both separate litigation-directed work from operational remediation without a demonstrated privilege difference.\nFailed candidates. CEO-email redrafts — different conduct failed; both replace the misleading email with materially accurate disclosure.\nFailed candidates. Ransom timing and negotiation — concrete consequence failed; both prohibit payment without sanctions screening and written insurer consent.\nFailed candidates. Reimaging characterization — different conduct failed; both require an immediate hold, preserved backups and logs, imaging, and preservation-safe restoration.\nFailed candidates. Acquirer-disclosure timing — concrete consequence failed; both require disclosure before the certificate is signed, with no record-supported harm from their narrower timing difference.\nHard stop. The 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"
    ]
  }
}