{
  "question": "q22",
  "model_1": "Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL",
  "model_2": "Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL",
  "answer_a_was": "Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL",
  "answer_b_was": "Qwen3.5-27B-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": 11367,
    "completion_tokens": 1246,
    "total_tokens": 12613,
    "cost": 0.10842,
    "is_byok": false,
    "prompt_tokens_details": {
      "cached_tokens": 0,
      "cache_write_tokens": 11364,
      "audio_tokens": 0,
      "video_tokens": 0
    },
    "cost_details": {
      "upstream_inference_cost": 0.10842,
      "upstream_inference_prompt_cost": 0.07104,
      "upstream_inference_completions_cost": 0.03738
    },
    "completion_tokens_details": {
      "reasoning_tokens": 960,
      "image_tokens": 0,
      "audio_tokens": 0
    }
  },
  "eval_prompt_sha256": "7e58b951cb86e4deba3b60fd01e9b9bd247ebe9883e1c9e43b24acffb1fd4667",
  "report": "TIE, FUNCTIONALLY EQUIVALENT.\n\nBasis. Both answers direct Lena not to attend tomorrow under the current agreement, to seek postponement while obtaining written status information and narrower derivative-use and rebuttal terms, and to decline if the decisive protections remain absent. Both also reject assumed cooperation credit, prohibit Lena from contacting Omar, and preserve the same materially safe course while records remain secured and no misconduct is ongoing.\n\n[A] rejected: counsel must not contact Omar or the officials to learn cooperation status — record requires lawful channels but does not categorically prohibit counsel contact.\n[B] rejected: Omar’s status must be obtained solely through the prosecutor — record permits lawful channels generally, not solely the prosecutor.\n[B] rejected: October 26, 2023 — record lacks a date.\n\nFailed candidates. Answer A’s additional demands concerning agency sharing, excluded offenses, and topic scope — concrete consequence failed; the record establishes no separate proceeding or unknown offense that would produce a different client outcome.\nFailed candidates. Answer B’s narrower conditions for a later proffer — likelihood failed; both answers condition attendance on materially improved protections and informed reassessment.\nFailed candidates. Different restrictions on counsel investigating Omar’s status — different conduct failed after ordinary verification of the lawful-channels rule.\nFailed candidates. Differences in detail and examples — different conduct failed.\n\nHard stop. The sentence cannot be completed with a concrete, record-supported consequence.",
  "judge_reasoning": "**Evaluating candidate outputs**\n\nI need to judge the outputs carefully and compare them. Both candidates seem to follow the same path but diverge significantly. Candidate A makes strong claims about status information and says that counsel should not contact a specific person, while Rule 8 indicates that counsel can use lawful channels. Candidate B argues that informal communication poses obstruction risks, which seems overly broad. There are inconsistencies in how each defines \"exact conditions,\" leading to the potential misstatement.**Analyzing cooperation conditions**\n\nThe record indicates that cooperation credit requires either a written promise or a later motion, but it doesn't mandate a written agreement upfront. The question about rational conditions later arises, and answers needing guarantees might risk losing cooperation. There are potential factual errors when discussing unknown crimes related to proffer statements. Candidate A insists counsel shouldn't contact a specific person, but Rule 8 states they shouldn't either. Both candidates might be materially inadequate in addressing these issues. I'm unsure if this could impair the investigation practically.**Examining requests and outputs**\n\nCandidate A requests a topic or witness list, but the rule allows for requesting subjects, not specifically a witness list. Candidate B does too. I need to produce an output despite failed candidates surfacing. Maybe I should create a neutralization log for any rejected points. Identifying rejected lines from A and B is important since we’re in a tie. The candidates diverge, with A being more extensive in requests compared to B's concise approach. However, it seems this doesn't change the required action.",
  "_public_record": {
    "type": "published record",
    "policy": "../../PUBLIC_RECORD_POLICY.md",
    "transformations": [
      "non-substantive machine metadata normalized",
      "published-record annotation added"
    ]
  }
}