{
  "question": "q21",
  "model_1": "DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS",
  "model_2": "Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL",
  "answer_a_was": "DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS",
  "answer_b_was": "Qwen3.8-27B-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": 6670,
    "completion_tokens": 1129,
    "total_tokens": 7799,
    "cost": 0.07555375,
    "is_byok": false,
    "prompt_tokens_details": {
      "cached_tokens": 0,
      "cache_write_tokens": 6667,
      "audio_tokens": 0,
      "video_tokens": 0
    },
    "cost_details": {
      "upstream_inference_cost": 0.07555375,
      "upstream_inference_prompt_cost": 0.04168375,
      "upstream_inference_completions_cost": 0.03387
    },
    "completion_tokens_details": {
      "reasoning_tokens": 885,
      "image_tokens": 0,
      "audio_tokens": 0
    }
  },
  "eval_prompt_sha256": "7e58b951cb86e4deba3b60fd01e9b9bd247ebe9883e1c9e43b24acffb1fd4667",
  "report": "TIE, FUNCTIONALLY EQUIVALENT.\n\nBasis. Both answers place Malik on the same materially correct path: they accurately present the plea and trial branches, calculate the expected custody ranges, explain the license consequences, recommend accepting the plea before 4:00 p.m. given his stated concern, and preserve his personal choice. No demonstrated difference would cause competent counsel or Malik to act differently or experience a different outcome.\n\n[B] rejected: “25% chance of no jail time at all” — record contradicts this because Malik has already served eight months; the answer elsewhere correctly identifies this as no additional incarceration.\n\nFailed candidate: B’s “no jail time at all” shorthand — Different conduct failed; the surrounding analysis repeatedly states that Malik has already served eight months and means no additional custody.\nFailed candidate: A’s direct recommendation versus B’s priority-conditioned recommendation — Different conduct failed; both recommend accepting based on Malik’s stated concern while leaving the final decision to him.\nFailed candidate: A’s additional expected-total-custody calculation — Different conduct failed; it does not change the recommendation or any required decision.\n\nHard stop. The 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"
    ]
  }
}