{
  "question": "q22",
  "model_1": "Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL",
  "model_2": "claude-opus-5",
  "answer_a_was": "claude-opus-5",
  "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": 8150,
    "completion_tokens": 2496,
    "total_tokens": 10646,
    "cost": 0.12581375,
    "is_byok": false,
    "prompt_tokens_details": {
      "cached_tokens": 0,
      "cache_write_tokens": 8147,
      "audio_tokens": 0,
      "video_tokens": 0
    },
    "cost_details": {
      "upstream_inference_cost": 0.12581375,
      "upstream_inference_prompt_cost": 0.05093375,
      "upstream_inference_completions_cost": 0.07488
    },
    "completion_tokens_details": {
      "reasoning_tokens": 2070,
      "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, seek narrower written derivative-use and rebuttal terms, obtain participant-status and topic information lawfully, and preserve records without contacting potential witnesses. Both leave her on the same materially safe path: no proffer unless the missing protections, information, and credible cooperation framework make participation rational.\n\n[B] rejected: October 26, 2023 date — record lacks any date.\n[B] rejected: proffer admission could be introduced with corroboration — cited direct-use rule bars the statement itself from the case-in-chief.\n[B] rejected: Omar-status information must come solely from the prosecutor — cited rule permits counsel to use lawful channels generally.\n[A] rejected: specified state, civil, tax, and misprision exposure — record lacks the substantive rules and facts establishing those offenses.\n[A] rejected: Omar’s charging or plea status necessarily means a fixed theory and low cooperation value — record lacks facts supporting that inference.\n[A] rejected: refusal to postpone would show the government seeks only to lock in Lena’s statement — record lacks facts establishing that motive.\n\nFailed candidates. B’s failure to request the two officials’ status expressly: concrete consequence failed; the record does not establish that either official has supplied contradictory information or that the omission would change attendance after topic clarification.\nFailed candidates. A’s additional agency-sharing, uncharged-conduct, correction, and sequencing conditions: different conduct failed; the record supplies no future government response that would cause the answers’ recommendations to diverge.\nFailed candidates. B’s corroboration qualification to the direct-use bar: no safe neutralization failed; the written clause and governing rule permit immediate rejection before action.\nFailed candidates. B’s prosecutor-only status channel: concrete consequence failed; no lost lawful information or resulting client harm is established.\nFailed candidates. A’s additional offense and government-motive predictions: no safe neutralization failed; they are visibly unsupported and unnecessary to the shared postponement decision.\n\nHard stop. The required 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"
    ]
  }
}