{
  "question": "q29",
  "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": 6697,
    "completion_tokens": 2970,
    "total_tokens": 9667,
    "cost": 0.1309525,
    "is_byok": false,
    "prompt_tokens_details": {
      "cached_tokens": 0,
      "cache_write_tokens": 6694,
      "audio_tokens": 0,
      "video_tokens": 0
    },
    "cost_details": {
      "upstream_inference_cost": 0.1309525,
      "upstream_inference_prompt_cost": 0.0418525,
      "upstream_inference_completions_cost": 0.0891
    },
    "completion_tokens_details": {
      "reasoning_tokens": 2578,
      "image_tokens": 0,
      "audio_tokens": 0
    }
  },
  "eval_prompt_sha256": "7e58b951cb86e4deba3b60fd01e9b9bd247ebe9883e1c9e43b24acffb1fd4667",
  "provenance_date": "2026-08-08",
  "report": "TIE, FUNCTIONALLY EQUIVALENT.\n\nBasis. Both answers direct Tessa not to seek immediate equal custody or emergency relief, to acknowledge the relapse, impaired driving, and nondisclosure candidly, and to negotiate a safeguarded phased plan while building a longer recovery record. Their differences in milestones and plan details do not establish that Daniel or the court would produce materially different parenting-time outcomes.\n\n[B] rejected: October 26, 2023 memorandum date — record lacks any date.\n[B] rejected: the relapse “resets the timeline of trust required by the court” — supplied rules impose no required timeline.\n[B] rejected: Eli knows Tessa drinks — record states only that he becomes anxious when adults discuss drinking.\n[B] rejected: the charge is a public record of intoxication that cannot be explained as “just one drink” — record establishes the charge but not the amount consumed or that the charge proves intoxication.\n[B] rejected: Tessa has a “one-week record followed by a lawsuit” — record states five weeks of negative tests.\n\nFailed candidate: Ninety-day versus six-month fallback filing date — concrete consequence failed because the record does not establish that negotiation will fail or that relief would be granted at either date.\nFailed candidate: A’s express parenting-time stages versus B’s less specific step-up proposal — concrete consequence failed because no different agreement or court-ordered schedule is established.\nFailed candidate: Different testing, transportation, disclosure, and reversion terms — record support failed because no future violation, transportation event, or testing dispute is supplied.\nFailed candidate: A’s proposed immediate expansion of supervised contact — concrete consequence failed because Daniel’s agreement or a court award is not established.\nFailed candidate: B’s unsupported factual and legal glosses — no safe neutralization failed because ordinary verification rejects them without changing the shared recommendation.\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"
    ]
  }
}