{
  "question": "q29",
  "model_1": "DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS",
  "model_2": "claude-opus-5",
  "answer_a_was": "claude-opus-5",
  "answer_b_was": "DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS",
  "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": 7764,
    "completion_tokens": 787,
    "total_tokens": 8551,
    "cost": 0.07213125,
    "is_byok": false,
    "prompt_tokens_details": {
      "cached_tokens": 0,
      "cache_write_tokens": 7761,
      "audio_tokens": 0,
      "video_tokens": 0
    },
    "cost_details": {
      "upstream_inference_cost": 0.07213125,
      "upstream_inference_prompt_cost": 0.04852125,
      "upstream_inference_completions_cost": 0.02361
    },
    "completion_tokens_details": {
      "reasoning_tokens": 516,
      "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 away from emergency or immediate equal custody and toward candid disclosure, continued recovery documentation, and negotiation of a safety-based phased plan, with litigation deferred until the record is stronger if agreement fails. Although their proposed step-up schedules differ, the record does not establish that either schedule would materially improve or harm Eli’s safety or Tessa’s custody position relative to the other.\n\nFailed candidates. Pace of restoring unsupervised overnights after 90 days — concrete consequence failed because the record does not establish which proposed pace produces a worse outcome.\nFailed candidates. Automatic advancement versus professional review before advancement — concrete consequence failed because both provide objective safeguards and the record does not establish a directional harm.\nFailed candidates. Conditions for resuming transportation — record support failed because no supplied rule or professional evidence establishes that either set of conditions is required or unsafe.\nFailed candidates. Testing frequency, reporting recipients, and treatment-release terms — material magnitude failed because no concrete change to custody or safety is demonstrated.\nFailed candidates. Filing fallback if Daniel refuses or stalls — different conduct failed because both ultimately recommend negotiating now, building a 90-day record, and litigating only if agreement cannot be reached.\n\nHard stop. The required 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"
    ]
  }
}