{
  "question": "q28",
  "model_1": "Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL",
  "model_2": "claude-opus-5",
  "answer_a_was": "claude-opus-5",
  "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": 9220,
    "completion_tokens": 2853,
    "total_tokens": 12073,
    "cost": 0.14321125,
    "is_byok": false,
    "prompt_tokens_details": {
      "cached_tokens": 0,
      "cache_write_tokens": 9217,
      "audio_tokens": 0,
      "video_tokens": 0
    },
    "cost_details": {
      "upstream_inference_cost": 0.14321125,
      "upstream_inference_prompt_cost": 0.05762125,
      "upstream_inference_completions_cost": 0.08559
    },
    "completion_tokens_details": {
      "reasoning_tokens": 2460,
      "image_tokens": 0,
      "audio_tokens": 0
    }
  },
  "eval_prompt_sha256": "7e58b951cb86e4deba3b60fd01e9b9bd247ebe9883e1c9e43b24acffb1fd4667",
  "provenance_date": "2026-08-08",
  "report": "TIE, FUNCTIONALLY EQUIVALENT.\n\nBasis. Both answers put counsel on the same material path: preserve and forensically copy the drive, segregate the categories, provide only relevant payroll evidence and notes to the agency, sequester privileged material, return or destroy unrelated data through a documented protocol, and prohibit disclosure to the journalist or prospective employer. Their differences do not produce a demonstrated change in Serena’s legal, evidentiary, privacy, or trade-secret position.\n\n[A] rejected: proposed declaration that Categories B, C, and D “were never opened” — record contradicts this for C and lacks that fact for B and D.\n[B] rejected: press disclosure “defeats” Serena’s whistleblower status — Rule 9 preserves separate treatment of protected and improper conduct.\n[B] rejected: Category A “might be legally permissible” to provide to the prospective employer — Rule 2 confines protected disclosure to counsel or an authorized regulator, and Answer B elsewhere expressly prohibits the disclosure.\n\nFailed candidates. A’s proposed unsupported declaration — different conduct failed because ordinary fact verification prevents counsel from obtaining it.\nFailed candidates. B’s prospective-employer ambiguity — different conduct failed because its controlling instruction and proposed response both prohibit disclosure.\nFailed candidates. Full-drive forensic preservation — different conduct failed because both answers require forensic copying before any return or destruction.\nFailed candidates. A’s additional agency confidentiality and PII precautions — concrete consequence failed because the record does not establish PII in Category A or a resulting disclosure harm.\nFailed candidates. Different characterizations of civil, criminal, access, and retaliation exposure — different conduct failed because both prescribe the same sequestration, nondisclosure, and protocol.\nFailed candidates. Privileged-memorandum protocol details — different conduct failed because both require stopping review, sequestration, notice, and an agreed or supervised disposition.\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"
    ]
  }
}