{
  "question": "q22",
  "model_1": "Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL",
  "model_2": "claude-opus-5",
  "answer_a_was": "claude-opus-5",
  "answer_b_was": "Qwen3.8-27B-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": 13507,
    "completion_tokens": 1686,
    "total_tokens": 15193,
    "cost": 0.134995,
    "is_byok": false,
    "prompt_tokens_details": {
      "cached_tokens": 0,
      "cache_write_tokens": 13504,
      "audio_tokens": 0,
      "video_tokens": 0
    },
    "cost_details": {
      "upstream_inference_cost": 0.134995,
      "upstream_inference_prompt_cost": 0.084415,
      "upstream_inference_completions_cost": 0.05058
    },
    "completion_tokens_details": {
      "reasoning_tokens": 1268,
      "image_tokens": 0,
      "audio_tokens": 0
    }
  },
  "eval_prompt_sha256": "7e58b951cb86e4deba3b60fd01e9b9bd247ebe9883e1c9e43b24acffb1fd4667",
  "report": "TIE, FUNCTIONALLY EQUIVALENT.\nBasis. Both answers direct Lena not to attend tomorrow, to seek postponement while obtaining written use restrictions, cooperation terms, participant-status information, and a defined subject list, and to decline if adequate protections are refused. Both also preserve records and prohibit Lena from contacting Omar or other potential witnesses, leaving her on the same materially safe legal and procedural path.\n[A] rejected: Omar’s being charged or having pleaded guilty means the government’s theory is fixed and Lena’s marginal value is low — record lacks facts establishing the government’s theory or Lena’s cooperation value.\n[A] rejected: an inaccurate memory can itself become a new felony — supplied rules reserve false statements but do not supply the offense elements or establish that an innocent inaccuracy qualifies.\n[A] rejected: refusal to postpone means the government wants to lock in Lena’s statement rather than obtain assistance — record lacks evidence of prosecutorial motive.\n[A] rejected: specific misprision, tax, state-bribery, and civil-liability consequences — record lacks the governing substantive law and additional facts needed to establish those consequences.\n[B] rejected: specific OIG, DOT, SEC, licensing, and regulatory consequences — record lacks facts identifying recipient agencies or applicable collateral regimes.\nFailed candidate: differing detail in requested protections and status disclosures — different conduct failed; both professionals request the same decisive protections and information before proceeding.\nFailed candidate: A’s conditional counsel-to-counsel contact with Omar’s lawyer versus B’s prohibition — concrete consequence failed; the record establishes no resulting client outcome.\nFailed candidate: differing thresholds for when a later proffer becomes rational — record support failed; no future government response or revised terms are supplied from which a directional consequence can be established.\nFailed candidate: differing speculative descriptions of collateral exposure — different conduct failed; both professionals seek restrictions on agency sharing and unknown-offense use.\nHard stop. The sentence cannot be completed with a concrete, record-supported consequence because both answers lead the reader to postpone tomorrow’s proffer and seek materially equivalent protections and status information.",
  "judge_reasoning": "",
  "_public_record": {
    "type": "published record",
    "policy": "../../PUBLIC_RECORD_POLICY.md",
    "transformations": [
      "non-substantive machine metadata normalized",
      "published-record annotation added"
    ]
  }
}