{
  "question": "q19",
  "model_1": "Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL",
  "model_2": "Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL",
  "answer_a_was": "Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL",
  "answer_b_was": "Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL",
  "verdict_code": "B",
  "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": 12190,
    "completion_tokens": 2177,
    "total_tokens": 14367,
    "cost": 0.14149375,
    "is_byok": false,
    "prompt_tokens_details": {
      "cached_tokens": 0,
      "cache_write_tokens": 12187,
      "audio_tokens": 0,
      "video_tokens": 0
    },
    "cost_details": {
      "upstream_inference_cost": 0.14149375,
      "upstream_inference_prompt_cost": 0.07618375,
      "upstream_inference_completions_cost": 0.06531
    },
    "completion_tokens_details": {
      "reasoning_tokens": 1552,
      "image_tokens": 0,
      "audio_tokens": 0
    }
  },
  "eval_prompt_sha256": "7e58b951cb86e4deba3b60fd01e9b9bd247ebe9883e1c9e43b24acffb1fd4667",
  "report": "ANSWER B IS MATERIALLY BETTER.\n\nBasis. Answer A recommends immediately contesting the codicil while assuring Claire that proceeding correctly effectively protects her existing $675,000; Answer B instead first pursues the independently actionable brokerage transfer, which cannot trigger the clause as written. That sequencing preserves Claire’s current inheritance from forfeiture while pursuing a $350,000 increase and developing evidence or settlement leverage before deciding whether to expose the $675,000 to a codicil contest.\n\nProof (winner verdicts only).\nExact difference. A says to “File the Probate Contest … and the Independent Exploitation Claim simultaneously” and that “We do not risk the $675,000 if we proceed correctly”; B recommends attacking the POD account first and reserving the codicil contest.\nDifferent conduct. A’s reader immediately files a codicil contest; B’s reader initially files only the nonprobate-transfer/exploitation claim.\nConcrete consequence. A’s filing immediately subjects Claire’s $675,000 benefit to possible forfeiture if good faith and probable cause are not established; B’s initial filing does not.\nRecord support. Rules 4 and 7 and the clause’s limited text establish the differing forfeiture consequences.\nMaterial magnitude. The protected or exposed interest is Claire’s entire current $675,000 inheritance.\nLikelihood. A expressly directs simultaneous filing, whereas a rational reader following B can seek the account’s $350,000 incremental benefit without invoking the clause.\nNo safe neutralization by ordinary verification. Correcting A requires replacing its recommended filing sequence and risk assessment, not merely checking a citation or fact.\n\n[A] rejected: assumed $200,000 litigation cost — record lacks any fee or cost evidence.\n[B] rejected: assumed claim probabilities, probable-cause probability, and $150,000–$300,000 costs — record lacks empirical probability or cost inputs.\n[A] rejected: incapacity could invalidate the earlier will entirely — record identifies the challenged instrument as the later codicil.\n[A] rejected: “netting you roughly $1 million more than your current share” — record arithmetic limits the maximum gross increase to $775,000.\n\nFailed candidates.\nCapacity assessments — different conduct failed; both advise against relying primarily on incapacity.\nUndue-influence characterization — different conduct failed; both invoke the same presumption from substantially the same procurement facts.\nAccount-success confidence — record support failed; neither supplied record supports a quantified probability.\nProbability-weighted expected values — record support failed because the probabilities and litigation costs were assumed.\nSettlement allocations — concrete consequence failed; the record does not establish which proposed bargain Sofia or Erik would accept.\nExploitation-claim details — record support failed; the supplied law does not provide complete statutory elements or forum requirements.\n\nHard stop. Because Answer A recommended immediately contesting the codicil while treating probable-cause protection as effectively assured, the reader would likely file that contest instead of initially challenging only the POD transfer, causing Claire’s existing $675,000 inheritance to become subject to possible forfeiture rather than remain protected during the account litigation.",
  "judge_reasoning": "",
  "_public_record": {
    "type": "published record",
    "policy": "../../PUBLIC_RECORD_POLICY.md",
    "transformations": [
      "non-substantive machine metadata normalized",
      "published-record annotation added"
    ]
  }
}