{
  "question": "q19",
  "model_1": "Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL",
  "model_2": "claude-opus-5",
  "answer_a_was": "Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL",
  "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": 16470,
    "completion_tokens": 2712,
    "total_tokens": 19182,
    "cost": 0.18429375,
    "is_byok": false,
    "prompt_tokens_details": {
      "cached_tokens": 0,
      "cache_write_tokens": 16467,
      "audio_tokens": 0,
      "video_tokens": 0
    },
    "cost_details": {
      "upstream_inference_cost": 0.18429375,
      "upstream_inference_prompt_cost": 0.10293375,
      "upstream_inference_completions_cost": 0.08136
    },
    "completion_tokens_details": {
      "reasoning_tokens": 2300,
      "image_tokens": 0,
      "audio_tokens": 0
    }
  },
  "eval_prompt_sha256": "7e58b951cb86e4deba3b60fd01e9b9bd247ebe9883e1c9e43b24acffb1fd4667",
  "report": "TIE, FUNCTIONALLY EQUIVALENT.\n\nBasis. After ordinary verification, both readers preserve the evidence, pursue the brokerage-account and exploitation claims without triggering the no-contest clause, seek mediation, and evaluate a timely codicil contest based principally on undue influence. The record supplies neither litigation deadlines and costs nor reliable success probabilities establishing that A’s staged filing or B’s earlier codicil filing produces a materially better outcome.\n\n[A] rejected: numerical success probabilities, litigation costs, and resulting expected values — record lacks empirical probability and cost inputs.\n[B] rejected: numerical success probabilities, litigation costs, and resulting expected values — record lacks empirical probability and cost inputs.\n[B] rejected: chronic fluctuating dementia shifts the lucid-interval burden to Sofia — supplied governing law contains no such burden-shifting rule.\n[B] rejected: Sofia “hits all five” procurement markers, including instructing the attorney — record contains no evidence that she instructed the attorney.\n[B] rejected: the bank memo is “close to dispositive” and the account claim has a 65–75% success probability — record supplies a clear-and-convincing burden but no basis for that quantified prediction.\n[B] rejected: Erik-only filing, court-approved settlement, subpoenas, or lis pendens necessarily eliminate or preserve specified risks — record lacks the procedural and indirect-contest rules required for those conclusions.\nFailed candidate: immediate versus reserved codicil contest — concrete consequence and record support failed because no filing deadline, cost, or outcome probability is supplied.\nFailed candidate: differing assessments of claim strength — record support failed for the quantified probabilities, while both answers identify the same operative evidence and burdens.\nFailed candidate: differing settlement floors and target ranges — record support failed because caregiving value, litigation costs, and Sofia’s settlement preferences are absent.\nFailed candidate: B’s additional procedural measures — likelihood failed because the record does not establish their availability, necessity, or effect.\n\nHard stop. The required 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"
    ]
  }
}