{
  "question": "q22",
  "model_1": "DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS",
  "model_2": "Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL",
  "answer_a_was": "Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL",
  "answer_b_was": "DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS",
  "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": 7630,
    "completion_tokens": 1558,
    "total_tokens": 9188,
    "cost": 0.09442375,
    "is_byok": false,
    "prompt_tokens_details": {
      "cached_tokens": 0,
      "cache_write_tokens": 7627,
      "audio_tokens": 0,
      "video_tokens": 0
    },
    "cost_details": {
      "upstream_inference_cost": 0.09442375,
      "upstream_inference_prompt_cost": 0.04768375,
      "upstream_inference_completions_cost": 0.04674
    },
    "completion_tokens_details": {
      "reasoning_tokens": 1248,
      "image_tokens": 0,
      "audio_tokens": 0
    }
  },
  "eval_prompt_sha256": "7e58b951cb86e4deba3b60fd01e9b9bd247ebe9883e1c9e43b24acffb1fd4667",
  "provenance_date": "2026-08-08",
  "report": "TIE, FUNCTIONALLY EQUIVALENT.\n\nBoth answers put Lena on the same materially correct and safe path: postpone tomorrow’s proffer, preserve records, avoid contacting potential witnesses, seek narrower written use provisions and nonprivileged status/topic information, and decline if adequate terms cannot be obtained. Their differences in proposed language and additional conditions do not establish any different client outcome on the supplied record.\n\n[A] rejected: counsel may obtain Omar’s status “solely” through the prosecutor — governing rules permit lawful channels generally.\n[B] rejected: document production must be excluded from any proffer — record supplies no such requirement.\n[B] rejected: a later proffer is rational only if every listed protection and disclosure is obtained — record does not establish each item as independently indispensable.\n\nFailed candidates. Different future-proffer conditions — concrete consequence failed; the record does not show what the government would accept or that either formulation would gain or lose a beneficial agreement.\nFailed candidates. Different scope of permissible status investigation — concrete consequence failed; both direct Lena away from witness contact and counsel toward lawful channels.\nFailed candidates. B’s additional grand-jury, state-agency, sentencing, and document-production cautions — likelihood failed; no supported reason shows they would alter the immediate postponement decision or Lena’s ultimate position.\nFailed candidates. Different formulations of requested cooperation assurances — record support failed; no offered benefit or government response establishes that either formulation would produce a different result.\n\nThe hard-stop 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"
    ],
    "retained": [
      "substantive report",
      "verdict code",
      "winner mapping",
      "A/B assignment",
      "model and judge identifiers",
      "finish reason",
      "token counts",
      "provenance date"
    ]
  }
}