{
  "question": "q25",
  "model_1": "Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL",
  "model_2": "claude-opus-5",
  "answer_a_was": "Qwen3.8-27B-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": 4104,
    "completion_tokens": 1769,
    "total_tokens": 5873,
    "cost": 0.07871625,
    "is_byok": false,
    "prompt_tokens_details": {
      "cached_tokens": 0,
      "cache_write_tokens": 4101,
      "audio_tokens": 0,
      "video_tokens": 0
    },
    "cost_details": {
      "upstream_inference_cost": 0.07871625,
      "upstream_inference_prompt_cost": 0.02564625,
      "upstream_inference_completions_cost": 0.05307
    },
    "completion_tokens_details": {
      "reasoning_tokens": 1412,
      "image_tokens": 0,
      "audio_tokens": 0
    }
  },
  "eval_prompt_sha256": "7e58b951cb86e4deba3b60fd01e9b9bd247ebe9883e1c9e43b24acffb1fd4667",
  "report": "TIE, FUNCTIONALLY EQUIVALENT.\n\nBasis. Both answers place the court on the same materially correct path: 12 months and one day of custody, supervised release, and restitution payments calibrated to Jana’s $1,700 monthly disposable income. Both candidly address the aggravating facts, victim harm, mitigation, unsupported claims, family care, diabetes, and the distinction between pre-detection and post-plea repayment; no demonstrated difference would produce a materially superior outcome.\n\n[B] rejected: Jana was “not under investigation” and repaid “without external pressure” — record establishes only that repayment occurred before the audit began.\n[B] rejected: the bookkeeping position is “the only realistic source” of further repayment — record lacks facts excluding other possible sources.\n\nFailed candidates. $400 versus $600 monthly restitution: concrete-consequence element failed because the record does not establish either affordable amount as materially preferable after accounting for both victim recovery and Jana’s payment burden.\nFailed candidates. Answer B’s omission of the guideline range and competing recommendations: different-conduct element failed because it still identifies and supports the same concrete below-guideline sentence.\nFailed candidates. Answer A specifies 36 months of supervision while Answer B does not: likelihood element failed because no record-supported reason shows that this drafting difference would change the imposed supervision term or restitution outcome.\nFailed candidates. Answer B’s unsupported repayment characterization: no-safe-neutralization element failed because ordinary record verification removes it without changing the supported pre-detection mitigation.\nFailed candidates. Answer B’s “only realistic source” assertion: no-safe-neutralization element failed because rejecting “only” leaves the same supported conclusion that continued employment facilitates restitution.\n\nHard stop. The required 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"
    ]
  }
}