{
  "question": "q29",
  "model_1": "Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL",
  "model_2": "Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL",
  "answer_a_was": "Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL",
  "answer_b_was": "Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL",
  "verdict_code": "A",
  "winner": "Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL",
  "judge_model": "openai/gpt-5.6-sol",
  "server_model": "openai/gpt-5.6-sol",
  "provider": "OpenAI",
  "finish_reason": "stop",
  "usage": {
    "prompt_tokens": 9764,
    "completion_tokens": 2118,
    "total_tokens": 11882,
    "cost": 0.12456125,
    "is_byok": false,
    "prompt_tokens_details": {
      "cached_tokens": 0,
      "cache_write_tokens": 9761,
      "audio_tokens": 0,
      "video_tokens": 0
    },
    "cost_details": {
      "upstream_inference_cost": 0.12456125,
      "upstream_inference_prompt_cost": 0.06102125,
      "upstream_inference_completions_cost": 0.06354
    },
    "completion_tokens_details": {
      "reasoning_tokens": 1552,
      "image_tokens": 0,
      "audio_tokens": 0
    }
  },
  "eval_prompt_sha256": "7e58b951cb86e4deba3b60fd01e9b9bd247ebe9883e1c9e43b24acffb1fd4667",
  "report": "ANSWER A IS MATERIALLY BETTER.\n\nBasis. Answer A pursues an objective step-up after 90 additional days and permits seeking a court-ordered phased plan if Daniel refuses, while Answer B recommends a six-month plan and postpones litigation until six months of compliance. Following B therefore delays Tessa’s opportunity for unsupervised parenting time and judicial relief by roughly three months despite Daniel’s stated willingness to consider step-up terms after 90 days.\n\nProof (winner verdicts only).\nExact difference: A recommends a 90-day conditional step-up and earlier court intervention if negotiations fail; B recommends a six-month plan and litigation only after six months.\nDifferent conduct: A’s lawyer negotiates for expansion at day 90 or files for a conditional step-up; B’s lawyer waits until month six.\nConcrete consequence: Under B, Tessa remains subject to the restrictive arrangement and loses the opportunity to obtain unsupervised time or judicial review approximately three months earlier.\nRecord support: Daniel will consider a written step-up after 90 additional negative-testing days, and the therapist supports gradual safeguarded expansion rather than a six- or twelve-month minimum.\nMaterial magnitude: Several additional months of supervised-only contact materially affects Tessa’s custody rights and parent-child time.\nLikelihood: A rational lawyer would act on Daniel’s express 90-day position rather than voluntarily defer negotiation leverage and litigation for six months.\nNo safe neutralization by ordinary verification: Replacing B’s six-month recommendation with a 90-day conditional plan requires reconstructing its proposed strategy and timeline.\n\n[B] rejected: “It resets the timeline of trust required by the court” — cited rules contain no reset rule.\n[B] rejected: “Eli…knows you drink” — record does not establish that fact.\n[B] rejected: “An impaired driving charge creates a public record of intoxication” — record supplies only the existence of a charge.\n[B] rejected: October 26, 2023 — record lacks a date.\n\nFailed candidates. Immediate equal custody and emergency relief — different conduct failed because both advise against them.\nFailed candidates. Treatment, testing, transportation, and relapse safeguards — concrete consequence failed because both prescribe materially protective conditions.\nFailed candidates. Relapse, nondisclosure, Eli’s absence, preference, and therapist evidence — different conduct failed because both recommend candor and gradual expansion.\nFailed candidates. Unsupported factual and legal assertions in B — no safe neutralization failed because ordinary verification rejects them without changing the material strategy.\n\nHard stop. Because Answer B recommended waiting six months rather than pursuing a 90-day conditional step-up, the reader would likely defer negotiation-backed expansion and litigation instead of seeking unsupervised time or judicial review at day 90, causing Tessa to experience roughly three additional months of restricted parenting time.",
  "judge_reasoning": "",
  "_public_record": {
    "type": "published record",
    "policy": "../../PUBLIC_RECORD_POLICY.md",
    "transformations": [
      "non-substantive machine metadata normalized",
      "published-record annotation added"
    ]
  }
}