{
  "question": "q23",
  "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": 8556,
    "completion_tokens": 936,
    "total_tokens": 9492,
    "cost": 0.08155125,
    "is_byok": false,
    "prompt_tokens_details": {
      "cached_tokens": 0,
      "cache_write_tokens": 8553,
      "audio_tokens": 0,
      "video_tokens": 0
    },
    "cost_details": {
      "upstream_inference_cost": 0.08155125,
      "upstream_inference_prompt_cost": 0.05347125,
      "upstream_inference_completions_cost": 0.02808
    },
    "completion_tokens_details": {
      "reasoning_tokens": 516,
      "image_tokens": 0,
      "audio_tokens": 0
    }
  },
  "eval_prompt_sha256": "7e58b951cb86e4deba3b60fd01e9b9bd247ebe9883e1c9e43b24acffb1fd4667",
  "provenance_date": "2026-08-08",
  "report": "TIE, FUNCTIONALLY EQUIVALENT.\n\nBasis. Both answers preserve records, retain separate counsel before Nora testifies, timely produce nonprivileged corporate records, withhold the privileged memorandum, seek narrow protection before the deposition, avoid the proposed declaration, file a truthful civil opposition, and comply with the grand-jury subpoena. Ordinary verification neutralizes their unsupported embellishments without changing that materially correct and safe sequence.\n\n[A] rejected: the CEO’s declaration request itself proves diverging interests — record establishes Nora’s exposure but not that the request independently proves the CEO’s conflict.\n[A] rejected: the proposed declaration is contradicted by the allegation — an allegation is not contrary evidence.\n[A] rejected: corporate nonproduction necessarily creates an “obstruction narrative” — record supplies no such consequence.\n[B] rejected: an indictment is “pending” — record states only that no indictment has issued and statuses remain under review.\n[B] rejected: shareholders may draw the adverse inference — governing rule assigns that determination to the civil factfinder.\n[B] rejected: Nora must invoke whenever truthful answers could incriminate her — invocation is her decision with separate counsel, not a mandatory corporate strategy.\n\nFailed candidates. B’s conditional declaration language versus A’s categorical rejection — different conduct failed because B elsewhere bars broad exculpatory claims and requires personal knowledge.\nFailed candidates. B’s proposed written interrogatories versus A’s alternative discovery package — likelihood failed because Nora’s separate counsel would preserve the same privilege against incriminating written answers.\nFailed candidates. Timing and breadth of the prosecutor inquiry — concrete consequence failed because both request status and stay-position information before the critical events and proceed cautiously if no answer comes.\nFailed candidates. A’s more detailed preservation and governance mechanics — material magnitude failed because both preserve relevant records, suspend deletion, address conflicts, and establish independent oversight.\nFailed candidates. Differences in describing adverse-inference risk — different conduct failed because both protect Nora’s criminal rights while recognizing that invocation is not automatic corporate liability.\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"
    ]
  }
}