{
  "question": "q28",
  "model_1": "DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS",
  "model_2": "Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL",
  "answer_a_was": "DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS",
  "answer_b_was": "Qwen3.5-27B-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": 7125,
    "completion_tokens": 2890,
    "total_tokens": 10015,
    "cost": 0.1312275,
    "is_byok": false,
    "prompt_tokens_details": {
      "cached_tokens": 0,
      "cache_write_tokens": 7122,
      "audio_tokens": 0,
      "video_tokens": 0
    },
    "cost_details": {
      "upstream_inference_cost": 0.1312275,
      "upstream_inference_prompt_cost": 0.0445275,
      "upstream_inference_completions_cost": 0.0867
    },
    "completion_tokens_details": {
      "reasoning_tokens": 2366,
      "image_tokens": 0,
      "audio_tokens": 0
    }
  },
  "eval_prompt_sha256": "7e58b951cb86e4deba3b60fd01e9b9bd247ebe9883e1c9e43b24acffb1fd4667",
  "provenance_date": "2026-08-08",
  "report": "TIE, FUNCTIONALLY EQUIVALENT.\n\nBasis. Both answers direct Serena to preserve and segregate the drive, disclose only Category A and relevant Category E materials to counsel and the labor agency, sequester Categories B–D, stop review and notify Avenor concerning Category C, and resolve return or destruction through a documented forensic protocol. Both prohibit disclosure to the journalist or prospective employer and preserve Serena’s retaliation position while recognizing independent confidentiality exposure; no concrete client outcome differs.\n\n[A] rejected: public disclosure would “lose the protective shield” for the wage-report documents — the record says press disclosure is unprotected, not that it retroactively defeats protected reporting.\n[A] rejected: Category D retention after demand can constitute continuing misappropriation — record lacks the governing trade-secret elements.\n[B] rejected: disclosure risks criminal charges or judgments exceeding a whistleblower award — record lacks criminal law, remedies, and award facts.\n[B] rejected: the prospective employer would likely reject Serena — record lacks evidence of the employer’s likely response.\n[B] rejected: Avenor is trying to bury the retaliation claim and risks spoliation claims against itself — record lacks facts establishing motive or threatened destruction of Avenor’s originals.\n[B] rejected: Category A might permissibly be provided to the prospective employer — internally inconsistent with B’s express “Strictly Prohibited” status and no-disclosure instruction.\n\nFailed candidate: Different Category A redaction language — concrete consequence failed because the record does not show unrelated protected data in those files.\nFailed candidate: A requests confidential agency treatment while B does not — record support failed because no agency-disclosure consequence or available protection is supplied.\nFailed candidate: A requests confirmation that Avenor preserves originals while B does not — record support failed because no threatened loss of Avenor’s originals is shown.\nFailed candidate: B’s prospective-employer ambiguity — different conduct failed because B expressly instructs Serena not to disclose files or proprietary information.\nFailed candidate: Different privileged-memo wording and protocol details — different conduct failed because both require sequestration, stopped review, notice, and an agreed or supervised protocol.\nFailed candidate: Different liability labels and predictions — different conduct failed because both prescribe the same segregation and nondisclosure measures.\nFailed candidate: Different forensic and chain-of-custody detail — concrete consequence failed because both preserve the evidence through a forensic protocol.\nFailed candidate: B omits comparator-practice detail — different conduct failed because no discipline decision or comparator facts require present action.\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"
    ],
    "retained": [
      "substantive report",
      "verdict code",
      "winner mapping",
      "A/B assignment",
      "model and judge identifiers",
      "finish reason",
      "token counts",
      "provenance date"
    ]
  }
}