{
  "question": "q25",
  "model_1": "DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS",
  "model_2": "Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL",
  "answer_a_was": "Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL",
  "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": 4011,
    "completion_tokens": 1283,
    "total_tokens": 5294,
    "cost": 0.063555,
    "is_byok": false,
    "prompt_tokens_details": {
      "cached_tokens": 0,
      "cache_write_tokens": 4008,
      "audio_tokens": 0,
      "video_tokens": 0
    },
    "cost_details": {
      "upstream_inference_cost": 0.063555,
      "upstream_inference_prompt_cost": 0.025065,
      "upstream_inference_completions_cost": 0.03849
    },
    "completion_tokens_details": {
      "reasoning_tokens": 1034,
      "image_tokens": 0,
      "audio_tokens": 0
    }
  },
  "eval_prompt_sha256": "7e58b951cb86e4deba3b60fd01e9b9bd247ebe9883e1c9e43b24acffb1fd4667",
  "report": "TIE, FUNCTIONALLY EQUIVALENT.\n\nBasis. Both answers place counsel on the same materially correct path: acknowledge the aggravated conduct and victim harm, reject unsupported mitigation, accurately present the supported mitigating facts, and request 12 months and one day with an income-based restitution condition. The differing payment proposals are both realistic on the supplied income, and the record does not establish that either would produce a materially better result for Jana.\n\nFailed candidates. $400 versus $500 monthly restitution — concrete consequence failed because the record does not establish which tradeoff between Jana’s cash flow and faster restitution would materially improve her position or affect the court’s sentence.\nFailed candidates. Answer A’s proposed 36-month supervised-release term versus Answer B’s unspecified term — record support failed because no governing duration or likely alternative is supplied.\nFailed candidates. Answer B’s express disparity and 24-month-comparison arguments — likelihood failed because both answers request and support the same variance, with no demonstrated change in judicial action.\nFailed candidates. Minor differences in describing public-protection and acceptance considerations — different conduct failed because they support the same sentencing request on the same facts.\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"
    ]
  }
}