{
  "question": "q23",
  "model_1": "DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS",
  "model_2": "Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL",
  "answer_a_was": "DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS",
  "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": 7194,
    "completion_tokens": 1818,
    "total_tokens": 9012,
    "cost": 0.09949875,
    "is_byok": false,
    "prompt_tokens_details": {
      "cached_tokens": 0,
      "cache_write_tokens": 7191,
      "audio_tokens": 0,
      "video_tokens": 0
    },
    "cost_details": {
      "upstream_inference_cost": 0.09949875,
      "upstream_inference_prompt_cost": 0.04495875,
      "upstream_inference_completions_cost": 0.05454
    },
    "completion_tokens_details": {
      "reasoning_tokens": 1552,
      "image_tokens": 0,
      "audio_tokens": 0
    }
  },
  "eval_prompt_sha256": "7e58b951cb86e4deba3b60fd01e9b9bd247ebe9883e1c9e43b24acffb1fd4667",
  "provenance_date": "2026-08-08",
  "report": "TIE, FUNCTIONALLY EQUIVALENT.\n\nBasis. Both answers place Bexley on the same materially safe path: preserve records, retain separate counsel, produce nonprivileged corporate records by both deadlines, withhold the memorandum, seek targeted civil protection, reject the proposed declaration, and timely file the civil opposition. Their differences do not establish different client conduct or a concrete outcome.\n\nB rejected: conditional suggestion that Nora could sign after reviewing side letters — internally inconsistent with its later prohibition on broad exculpatory claims and the personal-knowledge rule.\nB rejected: written interrogatories as an alternative protecting Nora — internally inconsistent with its recognition that testimonial answers may incriminate her and remain subject to separate counsel’s advice.\n\nFailed candidates. Declaration wording — no safe neutralization failed.\nFailed candidates. Written-interrogatory alternative — no safe neutralization failed.\nFailed candidates. Adverse-inference phrasing — different conduct failed.\nFailed candidates. Assumed “target” risk posture if prosecutors decline — concrete consequence failed.\nFailed candidates. Stay duration and review mechanism — likelihood failed.\nFailed candidates. Grand-jury extension request omitted by B — concrete consequence failed.\nFailed candidates. Different board-committee formulations — 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"
    ]
  }
}