{
  "question": "q22",
  "model_1": "DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS",
  "model_2": "claude-opus-5",
  "answer_a_was": "claude-opus-5",
  "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": 9770,
    "completion_tokens": 2333,
    "total_tokens": 12103,
    "cost": 0.13104875,
    "is_byok": false,
    "prompt_tokens_details": {
      "cached_tokens": 0,
      "cache_write_tokens": 9767,
      "audio_tokens": 0,
      "video_tokens": 0
    },
    "cost_details": {
      "upstream_inference_cost": 0.13104875,
      "upstream_inference_prompt_cost": 0.06105875,
      "upstream_inference_completions_cost": 0.06999
    },
    "completion_tokens_details": {
      "reasoning_tokens": 1967,
      "image_tokens": 0,
      "audio_tokens": 0
    }
  },
  "eval_prompt_sha256": "7e58b951cb86e4deba3b60fd01e9b9bd247ebe9883e1c9e43b24acffb1fd4667",
  "provenance_date": "2026-08-08",
  "report": "TIE, FUNCTIONALLY EQUIVALENT.\n\nBasis. Both answers direct Lena to postpone tomorrow’s proffer because the narrow direct-use protection leaves derivative use, broad rebuttal, agency sharing, uncharged-conduct exposure, and no guaranteed cooperation benefit, while Omar’s status and the intended subjects remain unknown. Both recommend obtaining written protections and status information through lawful channels and declining if sufficiently safe terms cannot be secured.\n\n[A] rejected: Omar being charged or having pleaded would mean the government’s theory is fixed and Lena’s value is low — record lacks facts establishing Omar’s status, the government’s theory, or Lena’s cooperation value.\n[A] rejected: the session’s stated focus indicates it follows a cooperating insider — record lacks confirmation that Omar or another insider is cooperating.\n[A] rejected: failure to postpone would show the government wants to lock in Lena’s statement rather than obtain assistance — record lacks any refusal to postpone or evidence of prosecutorial motive.\n[A] rejected: an inaccurate memory can become a new false-statement felony — record lacks facts establishing a knowingly false statement rather than an innocent inaccuracy.\n[A] rejected: Lena’s failure to report Omar’s remark may support a misprision-type offense — record lacks the elements and facts needed for that conclusion.\n\nFailed candidates.\nA’s additional speculative warnings about Omar and prosecutorial motive — record support failed.\nA’s misprision and inaccurate-memory warnings — record support failed.\nA’s additional proposed protections, including withdrawal and correction provisions, versus B’s no-document-production request — concrete consequence failed.\nThe answers’ slightly different formulations of acceptable derivative-use and rebuttal language — likelihood failed.\nMinor differences in suggested lawful investigative channels and cooperation-credit wording — different conduct failed.\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"
    ],
    "retained": [
      "substantive report",
      "verdict code",
      "winner mapping",
      "A/B assignment",
      "model and judge identifiers",
      "finish reason",
      "token counts",
      "provenance date"
    ]
  }
}