{
  "question": "q24",
  "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": 9225,
    "completion_tokens": 1881,
    "total_tokens": 11106,
    "cost": 0.1140825,
    "is_byok": false,
    "prompt_tokens_details": {
      "cached_tokens": 0,
      "cache_write_tokens": 9222,
      "audio_tokens": 0,
      "video_tokens": 0
    },
    "cost_details": {
      "upstream_inference_cost": 0.1140825,
      "upstream_inference_prompt_cost": 0.0576525,
      "upstream_inference_completions_cost": 0.05643
    },
    "completion_tokens_details": {
      "reasoning_tokens": 1552,
      "image_tokens": 0,
      "audio_tokens": 0
    }
  },
  "eval_prompt_sha256": "7e58b951cb86e4deba3b60fd01e9b9bd247ebe9883e1c9e43b24acffb1fd4667",
  "report": "TIE, FUNCTIONALLY EQUIVALENT.\n\nBasis. Both answers direct counsel to suppress the fentanyl and out-of-scope phone photograph, abandon staleness and knock-and-announce as suppression theories, concede the physical handgun’s lawful plain-view seizure, and preserve the remaining evidence through severability. Answer A’s unsupported charging and sentencing predictions are rejected through ordinary record verification, leaving the same materially safe, conditional plea posture stated by Answer B.\n\n[A] rejected: suppression necessarily eliminates all drug counts, mandatory minimums, and drug-firearm stacking — record lacks charging instruments, other drug evidence, and applicable penalty rules.\n[A] rejected: the photograph depicts a separate handgun and its suppression eliminates a separate count — record lacks facts linking the photograph to a particular charged count.\n[A] rejected: counsel could contest whether the removed serial number was visible — record states the serial number was visibly removed.\n[A] rejected: the cellphone itself was too large for the tube — record lacks the phone’s dimensions, although it independently stipulates that no listed item could fit.\n\nFailed candidates. Categorical versus conditional plea consequences — record support failed.\nFailed candidates. Prospective phone-search protocol and sequestration requested only by A — concrete consequence failed because no further search or use is established.\nFailed candidates. Preservation of an alternative challenge to the physical handgun by A — concrete consequence failed because the stipulated visible serial-number removal defeats it.\nFailed candidates. Different ordering of the losing staleness, firearm, and knock-and-announce issues — 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"
    ]
  }
}