{
  "question": "q24",
  "model_1": "Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL",
  "model_2": "claude-opus-5",
  "answer_a_was": "Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL",
  "answer_b_was": "claude-opus-5",
  "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": 6789,
    "completion_tokens": 2332,
    "total_tokens": 9121,
    "cost": 0.1123875,
    "is_byok": false,
    "prompt_tokens_details": {
      "cached_tokens": 0,
      "cache_write_tokens": 6786,
      "audio_tokens": 0,
      "video_tokens": 0
    },
    "cost_details": {
      "upstream_inference_cost": 0.1123875,
      "upstream_inference_prompt_cost": 0.0424275,
      "upstream_inference_completions_cost": 0.06996
    },
    "completion_tokens_details": {
      "reasoning_tokens": 1961,
      "image_tokens": 0,
      "audio_tokens": 0
    }
  },
  "eval_prompt_sha256": "7e58b951cb86e4deba3b60fd01e9b9bd247ebe9883e1c9e43b24acffb1fd4667",
  "provenance_date": "2026-08-08",
  "report": "TIE, FUNCTIONALLY EQUIVALENT.\n\nBasis. Both answers direct counsel to seek suppression of the fentanyl and out-of-scope phone photograph, abandon staleness and knock-and-announce suppression theories, treat the under-bed firearm as admissible, and apply severability to preserve lawful evidence. After rejecting unsupported sentencing and plea predictions, both place Aaron on the same materially correct litigation and negotiation path.\n\n[A] rejected: suppression will likely dismiss the drug charge and produce a reduced firearm recommendation — record lacks charging statutes, sentencing rules, and plea terms.\n[B] rejected: suppression eliminates mandatory minimums, a drug-firearm predicate, stacking enhancements, and a separate photograph-based firearm count — record lacks those charges, sentencing rules, and facts establishing a separate weapon.\n[A] rejected: shipping labels are generally associated with boxes or stacks — record lacks that storage convention.\n[B] rejected: the listed cellphone is not a sub-three-inch object — record lacks the phone’s dimensions.\n\nFailed candidate: Different ordering of the tube and phone issues — different conduct failed.\nFailed candidate: B’s prospective phone-search protocol — concrete consequence failed because no further out-of-scope review is shown or threatened.\nFailed candidate: B’s fuller inventory of surviving evidence — different conduct failed because A also requests item-specific relief and recognizes severability.\nFailed candidate: B’s preserved alternative challenge to the under-bed firearm — record support failed because the serial-number removal was expressly visible.\nFailed candidate: B’s express standing analysis — different conduct failed because neither answer would forgo the phone challenge.\nFailed candidate: Different plea and sentencing forecasts — record support failed.\nFailed candidate: B’s additional derivative-evidence and disclosure requests — concrete consequence failed because the record identifies no derivative evidence.\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"
    ]
  }
}