{
  "question": "q19",
  "model_1": "Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL",
  "model_2": "claude-opus-5",
  "answer_a_was": "claude-opus-5",
  "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": 11438,
    "completion_tokens": 2537,
    "total_tokens": 13975,
    "cost": 0.14759375,
    "is_byok": false,
    "prompt_tokens_details": {
      "cached_tokens": 0,
      "cache_write_tokens": 11435,
      "audio_tokens": 0,
      "video_tokens": 0
    },
    "cost_details": {
      "upstream_inference_cost": 0.14759375,
      "upstream_inference_prompt_cost": 0.07148375,
      "upstream_inference_completions_cost": 0.07611
    },
    "completion_tokens_details": {
      "reasoning_tokens": 2070,
      "image_tokens": 0,
      "audio_tokens": 0
    }
  },
  "eval_prompt_sha256": "7e58b951cb86e4deba3b60fd01e9b9bd247ebe9883e1c9e43b24acffb1fd4667",
  "provenance_date": "2026-08-05",
  "report": "TIE, FUNCTIONALLY EQUIVALENT.\n\nBasis. Both answers direct Claire to preserve the evidence, challenge the codicil primarily for undue influence, pursue the POD and exploitation claims, document probable cause, coordinate with Erik, and seek a global settlement. Their differences in confidence, numerical assumptions, procedural detail, and claim characterization do not establish that a competent professional would take a materially different path or produce a different client outcome.\n\n[A] rejected: stated success probabilities, litigation costs, expected values, settlement range, and walk-away floor — record lacks probability, fee, timing, and valuation inputs.\n[A] rejected: Sofia “hits all five” procurement markers — record lacks evidence that she instructed the attorney.\n[B] rejected: incapacity could invalidate the 2019 will and leave Claire with nothing — record concerns Henrik’s capacity when executing the later codicil and supplies no such consequence.\n[B] rejected: the physician’s note creates an execution-day evidentiary snapshot — record places that note five weeks before execution.\n[B] rejected: assumed $200,000 costs split between estate funds and Claire — record lacks cost and fee-allocation inputs.\n[B] rejected: recovery would net Claire roughly $1 million more than her current share — stated gross maximum increase is $775,000 before fees.\n\nFailed candidates. Expected-value completeness and omission of the account-only outcome — different conduct failed; both recommend pursuing both transfers.\nFailed candidates. Capacity framing — different conduct failed; both treat incapacity as secondary and vulnerability as supporting undue influence.\nFailed candidates. Procurement analysis — concrete consequence failed; the undisputed procurement acts establish the same presumption under either answer.\nFailed candidates. No-contest risk quantification — record support failed; neither forfeiture probability can be derived from the supplied record.\nFailed candidates. Exploitation elements and standing detail — record support failed; the governing-law summary does not supply the omitted jurisdiction-specific requirements.\nFailed candidates. Settlement terms and valuation — likelihood failed; no demonstrated basis shows the differing proposals would alter settlement conduct or outcome.\nFailed candidates. Procedural first steps and asset-preservation measures — record support failed; no deadline, dissipation, fiduciary appointment, or procedural rule establishes a different consequence.\n\nHard stop. It 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"
    ]
  }
}