{
  "question": "q23",
  "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": 8753,
    "completion_tokens": 1742,
    "total_tokens": 10495,
    "cost": 0.1069625,
    "is_byok": false,
    "prompt_tokens_details": {
      "cached_tokens": 0,
      "cache_write_tokens": 8750,
      "audio_tokens": 0,
      "video_tokens": 0
    },
    "cost_details": {
      "upstream_inference_cost": 0.1069625,
      "upstream_inference_prompt_cost": 0.0547025,
      "upstream_inference_completions_cost": 0.05226
    },
    "completion_tokens_details": {
      "reasoning_tokens": 1415,
      "image_tokens": 0,
      "audio_tokens": 0
    }
  },
  "eval_prompt_sha256": "7e58b951cb86e4deba3b60fd01e9b9bd247ebe9883e1c9e43b24acffb1fd4667",
  "provenance_date": "2026-08-08",
  "report": "TIE, FUNCTIONALLY EQUIVALENT.\n\nBasis. Both answers put Bexley on the same materially correct path: preserve and collect records, obtain separate counsel for exposed individuals, timely produce nonprivileged corporate records in both forums, protect the memorandum, seek a narrow civil stay, reject Nora’s proposed declaration, and meet all deadlines. Their differences in governance, collection mechanics, motion details, and ancillary precautions do not establish a different concrete client outcome.\n\n[A] rejected: the proposed declaration is “contradicted by the very allegation” — an allegation does not establish a contradiction.\n[A] rejected: the declaration “may waive Nora’s Fifth Amendment protection” — the supplied rules do not establish that consequence.\n[B] rejected: describing the subpoena may create “grand jury secrecy problems” — the record supplies no applicable secrecy restriction.\n\nFailed candidates.\nMandatory special committee in A versus conditional committee in B — concrete consequence failed.\nA’s additional imaging, custodian, insurance, auditor, and disclosure procedures — concrete consequence failed.\nA’s categorical restriction on company-counsel witness preparation versus B’s no-coaching rule — likelihood failed.\nA’s detailed stay duration, status reports, and civil alternatives versus B’s comparable but less specific proposal — different material conduct failed.\nA’s instruction to minute disputed board positions versus B’s warning not to discuss them in minutes — concrete consequence failed.\nDifferences in rolling-production logistics and extension proposals — concrete consequence failed.\nDifferences in adverse-inference mitigation detail — different material conduct failed.\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"
    ]
  }
}