{
  "question": "q18",
  "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": 7863,
    "completion_tokens": 1790,
    "total_tokens": 9653,
    "cost": 0.10284,
    "is_byok": false,
    "prompt_tokens_details": {
      "cached_tokens": 0,
      "cache_write_tokens": 7860,
      "audio_tokens": 0,
      "video_tokens": 0
    },
    "cost_details": {
      "upstream_inference_cost": 0.10284,
      "upstream_inference_prompt_cost": 0.04914,
      "upstream_inference_completions_cost": 0.0537
    },
    "completion_tokens_details": {
      "reasoning_tokens": 1446,
      "image_tokens": 0,
      "audio_tokens": 0
    }
  },
  "eval_prompt_sha256": "7e58b951cb86e4deba3b60fd01e9b9bd247ebe9883e1c9e43b24acffb1fd4667",
  "provenance_date": "2026-08-05",
  "report": "TIE, FUNCTIONALLY EQUIVALENT.\n\nBasis. After ordinary verification, both readers follow the same material path: retain the crew, timely answer the cure notice, preserve the differing-site-conditions claim, demand payment information, and record a $410,000 lien before the jurisdictional deadline. Answer B’s unsupported addition of unapproved DSC costs is safely rejected from the supplied lien rule and figures without reconstructing the analysis.\n\n[B] rejected: proposed $750,000–$850,000 lien including direct DSC costs — record supplies no approved change or allocation of direct DSC costs, and the governing rule permits only unpaid balances and approved changes.\n[B] rejected: “June 5 coordination meeting” — record identifies the meeting as March 5.\n\nFailed candidates.\nLien amount — no safe neutralization failed; ordinary verification reduces Answer B’s amount to the same supported $410,000 recommended by Answer A.\nLien filing on Days 4–7 versus Day 17 — concrete consequence failed; both dates precede the Day 19 deadline, and no filing failure is established.\nCure-performance detail — record support failed; the record does not establish what work is presently accessible or required of the warranty crew.\nAcceleration treatment — different conduct failed; both preserve the claim while excluding it from the lien absent further proof.\nMost-costly-mistake characterization — different conduct failed; both prohibit pulling the crew and filing the full $1,328,000.\nNotice-waiver confidence and supplemental-notice timing — different conduct failed; both invoke course-of-dealing waiver and send notice to the project executive.\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"
    ]
  }
}