{
  "question": "q19",
  "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": 8241,
    "completion_tokens": 1444,
    "total_tokens": 9685,
    "cost": 0.0948225,
    "is_byok": false,
    "prompt_tokens_details": {
      "cached_tokens": 0,
      "cache_write_tokens": 8238,
      "audio_tokens": 0,
      "video_tokens": 0
    },
    "cost_details": {
      "upstream_inference_cost": 0.0948225,
      "upstream_inference_prompt_cost": 0.0515025,
      "upstream_inference_completions_cost": 0.04332
    },
    "completion_tokens_details": {
      "reasoning_tokens": 1034,
      "image_tokens": 0,
      "audio_tokens": 0
    }
  },
  "eval_prompt_sha256": "7e58b951cb86e4deba3b60fd01e9b9bd247ebe9883e1c9e43b24acffb1fd4667",
  "provenance_date": "2026-08-05",
  "report": "TIE, FUNCTIONALLY EQUIVALENT.\n\nBasis. Both answers place Claire on the same material path: preserve and obtain the evidence, pursue the strong and no-contest-safe POD challenge, assert the codicil challenge with documented probable cause, use the exploitation claim as settlement leverage, and seek a global resolution before or alongside litigation. Their supported outcome figures are materially consistent, and the disputed estimates and characterizations do not establish different client conduct or consequences.\n\n[A] rejected: incapacity could invalidate the entire will and leave Claire nothing — record identifies the challenged instrument as a codicil and an operative 2019 will.\n[A] rejected: assumed $200,000 litigation cost — record lacks cost inputs.\n[B] rejected: illustrative 45% and 55% success probabilities and resulting expected value — record lacks probability inputs.\n[B] rejected: punitive or additional statutory exploitation penalties — record supplies only property recovery and fee shifting.\n\nFailed candidates. Missing POD-only arithmetic in A — different conduct failed; A still recommends challenging the POD transfer and identifies its $700,000 value.\nFailed candidates. A’s overstatement of no-contest protection — likelihood failed; both answers recognize probable cause and recommend documenting it before contesting.\nFailed candidates. Filing immediately in A versus demanding mediation first in B — concrete consequence failed; the record supplies no deadline or event making either sequence outcome-determinative.\nFailed candidates. Evidence-hold letters in B versus record requests in A — record support failed; no threatened destruction or loss of evidence is shown.\nFailed candidates. Joint representation with Erik in A — concrete consequence failed; no actual conflict or resulting harm is established.\nFailed candidates. Different characterizations of Sofia’s waiting outside and procurement acts — different conduct failed; both conclude the undue-influence presumption arises and recommend the same challenge.\nFailed candidates. Different settlement ranges — likelihood failed; neither answer’s proposed figures are tied to record-supported bargaining probabilities.\n\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"
    ],
    "retained": [
      "substantive report",
      "verdict code",
      "winner mapping",
      "A/B assignment",
      "model and judge identifiers",
      "finish reason",
      "token counts",
      "provenance date"
    ]
  }
}