{
  "question": "q17",
  "model_1": "DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS",
  "model_2": "Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL",
  "answer_a_was": "DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS",
  "answer_b_was": "Qwen3.5-27B-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": 8040,
    "completion_tokens": 2360,
    "total_tokens": 10400,
    "cost": 0.12104625,
    "is_byok": false,
    "prompt_tokens_details": {
      "cached_tokens": 0,
      "cache_write_tokens": 8037,
      "audio_tokens": 0,
      "video_tokens": 0
    },
    "cost_details": {
      "upstream_inference_cost": 0.12104625,
      "upstream_inference_prompt_cost": 0.05024625,
      "upstream_inference_completions_cost": 0.0708
    },
    "completion_tokens_details": {
      "reasoning_tokens": 1982,
      "image_tokens": 0,
      "audio_tokens": 0
    }
  },
  "eval_prompt_sha256": "7e58b951cb86e4deba3b60fd01e9b9bd247ebe9883e1c9e43b24acffb1fd4667",
  "provenance_date": "2026-08-05",
  "report": "TIE, FUNCTIONALLY EQUIVALENT.\n\nBasis. Both answers reject indiscriminate Friday litigation, platform claims, claims based on protected opinion, suit against Voss, and an immediate broad injunction. Both direct Lumen toward platform reporting, demands, evidence development, and narrow potential claims against the former employee and Velvet while recognizing confidentiality and fee-shifting exposure.\n\n[B] rejected: removing the Voss reply will “stop the confidentiality clock and statutory damage accrual” — record lacks any accrual rule.\n[B] rejected: discovery against Velvet may bypass anonymous-speaker protections and produce account identities — cited authority says a special motion stays discovery.\n[B] rejected: final adjudication permits an order removing the statement — cited authority authorizes only a narrow order against repeating specifically adjudicated statements.\n\nFailed candidates. Velvet filing sequence — concrete consequence failed; the record does not establish that Velvet’s special motion would be granted rather than defeated by the message, suspicious accounts, and quantified decline.\nFailed candidates. Former-employee filing timing — concrete consequence failed; Answer A conditions filing on sufficient admissible evidence, while Answer B delays, and no deadline-related loss is shown.\nFailed candidates. Immediate removal of the Voss reply — record support failed; no supplied rule establishes continuing statutory-damage accrual, while both answers advise against further disclosure or suit.\nFailed candidates. Answer B’s omission of express preservation requests — concrete consequence failed; the record does not establish that platform reporting would destroy identifying data.\nFailed candidates. Injunction-remedy description — different conduct failed; both readers reject the requested immediate blanket injunction and pursue voluntary platform removal instead.\nFailed candidates. Relative characterization of Velvet as the strongest claim — likelihood failed; differing risk assessments do not establish materially different conduct or outcome on this record.\n\nHard stop. The required 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"
    ],
    "retained": [
      "substantive report",
      "verdict code",
      "winner mapping",
      "A/B assignment",
      "model and judge identifiers",
      "finish reason",
      "token counts",
      "provenance date"
    ]
  }
}