{
  "question": "q26",
  "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": 16769,
    "completion_tokens": 2064,
    "total_tokens": 18833,
    "cost": 0.1667225,
    "is_byok": false,
    "prompt_tokens_details": {
      "cached_tokens": 0,
      "cache_write_tokens": 16766,
      "audio_tokens": 0,
      "video_tokens": 0
    },
    "cost_details": {
      "upstream_inference_cost": 0.1667225,
      "upstream_inference_prompt_cost": 0.1048025,
      "upstream_inference_completions_cost": 0.06192
    },
    "completion_tokens_details": {
      "reasoning_tokens": 1723,
      "image_tokens": 0,
      "audio_tokens": 0
    }
  },
  "eval_prompt_sha256": "7e58b951cb86e4deba3b60fd01e9b9bd247ebe9883e1c9e43b24acffb1fd4667",
  "report": "TIE, FUNCTIONALLY EQUIVALENT.\n\nBasis. Both answers place Solstice on the same materially correct path: immediate preservation of perishable data and personal work devices, suspension of suspect payments and Cole’s authority, an independent committee-directed outside-counsel investigation, protected interviews, rapid payment tracing, and an early disclosure decision using August 2 as the conservative clock date. Their differences in specificity and timing do not demonstrate a different legal, evidentiary, financial, or operational outcome.\n\n[A] rejected: “Internal audit reports to the CFO” — record lacks the internal-audit reporting line.\n[A] rejected: the CFO’s proposal warrants inquiry into “why did finance want delay?” — record lacks evidence of an improper motive.\n[B] rejected: interviews may be recorded without a stated local-law check — record lacks the jurisdiction and applicable recording law.\n\nFailed candidates. Clock characterization and Day 11 versus Day 7–14 decision gates — concrete consequence failed.\nFailed candidates. A’s more detailed preservation, bank-record, and East Reach demands — different conduct failed because B requires the same material collections and tracing.\nFailed candidates. A’s stricter reporter-identification and longer HR screening controls — concrete consequence failed.\nFailed candidates. B’s possible interview recording — concrete consequence failed because no applicable recording law is supplied.\nFailed candidates. A’s protective filing upon signs of regulator interest versus B’s instruction to file upon actual contact — likelihood failed because the record shows no regulator contact or precursor.\nFailed candidates. Differences in the scope of East Reach payment and relationship restrictions — concrete consequence failed.\n\nHard stop. The hard-stop 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"
    ]
  }
}