{
  "question": "q21",
  "model_1": "Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL",
  "model_2": "claude-opus-5",
  "answer_a_was": "Qwen3.5-27B-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": 6193,
    "completion_tokens": 1372,
    "total_tokens": 7565,
    "cost": 0.0798625,
    "is_byok": false,
    "prompt_tokens_details": {
      "cached_tokens": 0,
      "cache_write_tokens": 6190,
      "audio_tokens": 0,
      "video_tokens": 0
    },
    "cost_details": {
      "upstream_inference_cost": 0.0798625,
      "upstream_inference_prompt_cost": 0.0387025,
      "upstream_inference_completions_cost": 0.04116
    },
    "completion_tokens_details": {
      "reasoning_tokens": 1034,
      "image_tokens": 0,
      "audio_tokens": 0
    }
  },
  "eval_prompt_sha256": "7e58b951cb86e4deba3b60fd01e9b9bd247ebe9883e1c9e43b24acffb1fd4667",
  "provenance_date": "2026-08-08",
  "report": "TIE, FUNCTIONALLY EQUIVALENT.\n\nBasis. Both answers lead Malik to the same materially correct and safe path: they accurately state the plea and trial ranges, probabilities, credits, license consequences, and expected-custody ranges, then recommend accepting the plea while preserving Malik’s personal choice before 4:00 p.m. The disputed statements are either facially inconsistent with the answers’ own correct figures or unsupported additions that ordinary verification would reject without changing that path.\n\n[A] rejected: expected remaining trial time is “double” the plea maximum — internally inconsistent with 42.6 months versus 34 months.\n[B] rejected: Malik must admit the robbery “in open court, in your own words” or the plea is unavailable — record lacks that plea-procedure requirement.\n[B] rejected: counsel can ask the prosecutor for a short extension — record lacks any basis that an extension is available.\n\nFailed candidate: Answer A’s “double” characterization — no safe neutralization failed; the adjacent figures disclose and neutralize the error.\nFailed candidate: Answer B’s asserted personal-admission requirement — no safe neutralization failed; ordinary verification against the supplied law rejects it.\nFailed candidate: Answer B’s possible-extension statement — different conduct failed; Malik is expressly told to treat 4:00 p.m. as the operative deadline.\nFailed candidate: Answer B’s renewed discussion of evidentiary facts already embedded in the fixed probabilities — different conduct failed; it does not alter the supplied odds, recommendation, or available choices.\n\nHard stop. The sentence cannot be completed with a concrete, record-supported consequence because both answers place Malik on the same material decision path.",
  "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"
    ]
  }
}