{
  "question": "q19",
  "model_1": "DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS",
  "model_2": "Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL",
  "answer_a_was": "Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL",
  "answer_b_was": "DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS",
  "verdict_code": "A",
  "winner": "Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL",
  "judge_model": "openai/gpt-5.6-sol",
  "server_model": "openai/gpt-5.6-sol",
  "provider": "OpenAI",
  "finish_reason": "stop",
  "usage": {
    "prompt_tokens": 13273,
    "completion_tokens": 3738,
    "total_tokens": 17011,
    "cost": 0.1950925,
    "is_byok": false,
    "prompt_tokens_details": {
      "cached_tokens": 0,
      "cache_write_tokens": 13270,
      "audio_tokens": 0,
      "video_tokens": 0
    },
    "cost_details": {
      "upstream_inference_cost": 0.1950925,
      "upstream_inference_prompt_cost": 0.0829525,
      "upstream_inference_completions_cost": 0.11214
    },
    "completion_tokens_details": {
      "reasoning_tokens": 3106,
      "image_tokens": 0,
      "audio_tokens": 0
    }
  },
  "eval_prompt_sha256": "7e58b951cb86e4deba3b60fd01e9b9bd247ebe9883e1c9e43b24acffb1fd4667",
  "report": "ANSWER A IS MATERIALLY BETTER.\n\nBasis. Answer A recommends pursuing the nonprobate account and exploitation claims first while reserving the codicil contest; Answer B recommends a combined action if mediation fails. The combined filing immediately subjects Claire’s existing $675,000 residue to a no-contest forfeiture determination, whereas the staged approach pursues the $350,000 account upside without that exposure and preserves the codicil claim.\n\nProof (winner verdicts only).\nExact difference: A says “do not immediately contest the codicil”; B says to “file a combined action challenging the codicil, the POD designation, and asserting financial exploitation.”\nDifferent conduct: A’s reader initially files only account/exploitation claims; B’s reader also contests the codicil.\nConcrete consequence: Under B’s course, Claire’s $675,000 residue becomes subject to forfeiture if good faith and probable cause are not established; under A’s initial course, it does not.\nRecord support: The clause reaches contests of the will or codicil, while governing law expressly excludes the nonprobate challenge because the clause does not mention such transfers.\nMaterial magnitude: The exposed $675,000 is Claire’s entire existing inheritance and exceeds the $350,000 incremental account recovery.\nLikelihood: B expressly directs the combined filing after unsuccessful mediation, while probable cause, though strongly supported, still requires an adjudication and is not guaranteed.\nNo safe neutralization by ordinary verification: Checking the clause confirms rather than eliminates the exposure; deciding that combined litigation nevertheless has positive expected value requires supplying reliable probabilities and costs absent from B.\n\n[A] rejected: numerical win rates and assumed litigation costs — record lacks empirical probability and fee inputs.\n[B] rejected: numerical win rates, expected value, and assumed litigation costs — record lacks empirical probability and fee inputs.\n[B] rejected: Sofia’s bank attendance as active procurement of the codicil — record places the bank transaction two months after execution.\n[B] rejected: Henrik may have repeated Sofia’s “script” — record lacks evidence of scripting.\n[B] rejected: constructive-trust, punitive-damages, and additional-penalty remedies — supplied law does not state those remedies.\n\nFailed candidates.\nDifferent assessments of Sofia’s rebuttal — record support failed; both assessments remain plausible on the supplied evidence.\nDifferent characterization of the account claim’s strength — different conduct failed; both answers recommend pursuing it.\nDifferent settlement ranges — concrete consequence failed; the record cannot establish which demand would produce a better settlement.\nBroader exploitation remedies in B — no-safe-neutralization failed; unsupported remedies are rejected without changing the viable account and fee-shifting claims.\nDifferent expected-value totals — record support failed because both depend on invented probabilities and costs.\n\nHard stop. Because Answer B said to file a combined codicil and POD challenge after failed mediation, the reader would likely contest the codicil immediately instead of first pursuing only the nonprobate account claim, causing Claire’s $675,000 residue to become subject to forfeiture under the no-contest clause rather than remain protected while account relief is pursued.",
  "judge_reasoning": "",
  "_public_record": {
    "type": "published record",
    "policy": "../../PUBLIC_RECORD_POLICY.md",
    "transformations": [
      "non-substantive machine metadata normalized",
      "published-record annotation added"
    ]
  }
}