{
  "question": "q19",
  "model_1": "DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS",
  "model_2": "claude-opus-5",
  "answer_a_was": "DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS",
  "answer_b_was": "claude-opus-5",
  "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": 12521,
    "completion_tokens": 3243,
    "total_tokens": 15764,
    "cost": 0.1755425,
    "is_byok": false,
    "prompt_tokens_details": {
      "cached_tokens": 0,
      "cache_write_tokens": 12518,
      "audio_tokens": 0,
      "video_tokens": 0
    },
    "cost_details": {
      "upstream_inference_cost": 0.1755425,
      "upstream_inference_prompt_cost": 0.0782525,
      "upstream_inference_completions_cost": 0.09729
    },
    "completion_tokens_details": {
      "reasoning_tokens": 2777,
      "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 evidence, challenge the POD transfer without forfeiture exposure, document probable cause before contesting the codicil, pursue exploitation remedies, and seek a global mediated settlement. Both correctly calculate the gross outcomes and identify undue influence and the convenience-account theory as the principal claims; their unsupported numerical forecasts and ancillary procedural assertions do not establish a different client outcome.\n\n[B] rejected: formal presumption of capacity and lucid-interval burden shift — governing rules contain neither burden rule.\n[B] rejected: Sofia instructed the drafting attorney — record lacks evidence of instructions.\n[A/B] rejected: claim-success probabilities, litigation costs, expected values, and settlement floors — record lacks empirical or case-specific inputs supporting those figures.\n[A] rejected: punitive or additional statutory remedies — supplied law identifies recovery and fee shifting but no such remedies.\n[B] rejected: Claire’s forfeited residue would almost certainly pass to Erik — record lacks a governing distribution rule.\n[B] rejected: subpoenas could freeze the POD proceeds and immediate lis pendens or injunctive relief is available — record lacks the necessary procedural and asset-dissipation facts.\n\nFailed candidate: differing capacity-burden analysis — different conduct failed; both treat capacity as secondary and undue influence as the lead theory.\nFailed candidate: additional procurement acts asserted by B — different conduct failed; the undisputed lawyer selection, scheduling, transportation, and handwritten asset list already establish active procurement.\nFailed candidate: differing expected values and settlement floors — record support failed.\nFailed candidate: B’s Erik-only petitioner option — likelihood failed; Erik’s willingness and the legal effectiveness of that structure are not established.\nFailed candidate: B’s immediate filing versus A’s prefiling mediation — concrete consequence failed; no limitations date or imminent asset transfer is supplied.\nFailed candidate: exploitation claim’s possible reach to the house — different conduct failed; both recommend a codicil contest alongside the exploitation claim.\nFailed candidate: B applies forfeiture risk only to the “neither claim succeeds” EV branch — different conduct failed; correcting that branch does not change B’s recommended course under its own assumptions.\n\nHard stop. The sentence cannot be completed with a concrete, record-supported consequence that differs between the answers.",
  "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"
    ]
  }
}