{
  "question": "q28",
  "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": 13142,
    "completion_tokens": 1775,
    "total_tokens": 14917,
    "cost": 0.13538375,
    "is_byok": false,
    "prompt_tokens_details": {
      "cached_tokens": 0,
      "cache_write_tokens": 13139,
      "audio_tokens": 0,
      "video_tokens": 0
    },
    "cost_details": {
      "upstream_inference_cost": 0.13538375,
      "upstream_inference_prompt_cost": 0.08213375,
      "upstream_inference_completions_cost": 0.05325
    },
    "completion_tokens_details": {
      "reasoning_tokens": 1443,
      "image_tokens": 0,
      "audio_tokens": 0
    }
  },
  "eval_prompt_sha256": "7e58b951cb86e4deba3b60fd01e9b9bd247ebe9883e1c9e43b24acffb1fd4667",
  "report": "TIE, FUNCTIONALLY EQUIVALENT.\n\nBasis. Both answers direct counsel to preserve and produce Categories A and E through protected channels, sequester Category C with notice and a privilege protocol, and return or delete Categories B and D only through a documented forensic process. Both prohibit disclosure to the journalist or prospective employer, reject Avenor’s blanket demand, and leave Serena on the same materially safe handling and communications path.\n\n[A] rejected: proposed declaration that Categories B, C, and D “were never opened” — record contradicts this as to Category C and supplies no such fact as to B or D.\n[A] rejected: categorical claims about breach-notification regimes, inevitable disclosure, remedies, and litigation strength — record lacks the jurisdiction-specific rules required.\n[B] rejected: suggestion that counsel may minimally review Category B — internally inconsistent with its later instruction to stop review and unnecessary because the record already identifies the category.\n\nFailed candidates. Answer A’s unsupported declaration and forensic-certainty language — record support failed and ordinary verification safely neutralizes it.\nFailed candidates. Answer B’s possible minimal review of Category B — different conduct failed after its express sequestration instructions.\nFailed candidates. Answer B’s suggestion to crop or redact screenshots — different conduct failed because both answers require preservation of originals and contemplate redacted production copies.\nFailed candidates. Differences in risk ratings and legal characterization — different conduct failed.\nFailed candidates. Differences in wording about ownership of screenshots and access authorization — concrete consequence failed because both answers prescribe the same retention, sequestration, and disclosure limits.\n\nHard stop. It 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"
    ]
  }
}