{
  "question": "q25",
  "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": "B",
  "winner": "claude-opus-5",
  "judge_model": "openai/gpt-5.6-sol",
  "server_model": "openai/gpt-5.6-sol",
  "provider": "OpenAI",
  "finish_reason": "stop",
  "usage": {
    "prompt_tokens": 3973,
    "completion_tokens": 2609,
    "total_tokens": 6582,
    "cost": 0.1030975,
    "is_byok": false,
    "prompt_tokens_details": {
      "cached_tokens": 0,
      "cache_write_tokens": 3970,
      "audio_tokens": 0,
      "video_tokens": 0
    },
    "cost_details": {
      "upstream_inference_cost": 0.1030975,
      "upstream_inference_prompt_cost": 0.0248275,
      "upstream_inference_completions_cost": 0.07827
    },
    "completion_tokens_details": {
      "reasoning_tokens": 2070,
      "image_tokens": 0,
      "audio_tokens": 0
    }
  },
  "eval_prompt_sha256": "7e58b951cb86e4deba3b60fd01e9b9bd247ebe9883e1c9e43b24acffb1fd4667",
  "provenance_date": "2026-08-08",
  "report": "ANSWER B IS MATERIALLY BETTER.\n\nBasis. Answer B accurately uses the record’s strongest mitigation—$70,000 repaid before the audit began—to support a 12-month-and-one-day variance, while Answer A understates that timing and requests 24 months. That divergence places Jana at risk of nearly twelve additional months of imposed custody without requiring the court to reject any governing rule or supplied fact.\n\nProof (winner verdicts only).\nExact difference. A says the payment occurred “before the audit concluded” and requests 24 months; B states it occurred before the audit began and requests 12 months and one day.\nDifferent conduct. Counsel using A asks the court for 24 months; counsel using B asks for a supported downward variance to 12 months and one day.\nConcrete consequence. If the court adopts the respective request, Jana receives a prison term nearly twelve months longer under A.\nRecord support. The record permits a variance, expressly gives greater mitigating weight to pre-detection restitution, and supplies no-record history, 27 years of work, acceptance, and $70,000 repaid before the audit.\nMaterial magnitude. Approximately twelve additional months of lost liberty is material.\nLikelihood. The sentencing term is the decision presently before the court, and counsel’s concrete request frames the relief the court is asked to grant.\nNo safe neutralization by ordinary verification. Converting A’s guideline request into B’s variance requires constructing and advocating a materially different sentencing recommendation, not merely checking the payment date.\n\n[B] rejected: “she was not under investigation and had no charge to answer” — record lacks investigation and charging dates.\n[B] rejected: the shorter sentence “preserves” the bookkeeping position — record lacks evidence that the position depends on sentence length.\n\nFailed candidates. Restitution schedules of $1,500 versus $600 per month — concrete consequence failed because both are within the verified $1,700 disposable income and the record does not establish that either produces a worse overall result.\nFailed candidates. B’s full-windfall condition — likelihood failed because the record identifies no prospective windfall.\nFailed candidates. Unsupported investigation and charging status — no safe neutralization failed because ordinary record-checking removes it.\nFailed candidates. Claimed job preservation from the shorter term — no safe neutralization failed because the unsupported causal claim can be rejected without changing the supported variance request.\n\nHard stop. Because Answer A omitted that the $70,000 repayment preceded the audit and requested 24 months, the reader would likely seek a 24-month guideline sentence instead of a 12-month-and-one-day variance, causing Jana to experience nearly twelve additional months of imposed custody.",
  "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"
    ]
  }
}