{
  "question": "q29",
  "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": "A",
  "winner": "claude-opus-5",
  "judge_model": "openai/gpt-5.6-sol",
  "server_model": "openai/gpt-5.6-sol",
  "provider": "OpenAI",
  "finish_reason": "stop",
  "usage": {
    "prompt_tokens": 7091,
    "completion_tokens": 1586,
    "total_tokens": 8677,
    "cost": 0.091895,
    "is_byok": false,
    "prompt_tokens_details": {
      "cached_tokens": 0,
      "cache_write_tokens": 7088,
      "audio_tokens": 0,
      "video_tokens": 0
    },
    "cost_details": {
      "upstream_inference_cost": 0.091895,
      "upstream_inference_prompt_cost": 0.044315,
      "upstream_inference_completions_cost": 0.04758
    },
    "completion_tokens_details": {
      "reasoning_tokens": 1034,
      "image_tokens": 0,
      "audio_tokens": 0
    }
  },
  "eval_prompt_sha256": "7e58b951cb86e4deba3b60fd01e9b9bd247ebe9883e1c9e43b24acffb1fd4667",
  "provenance_date": "2026-08-08",
  "report": "ANSWER A IS MATERIALLY BETTER.\n\nBasis. Both answers reject emergency relief and immediate equal custody in favor of candor, safeguards, and a negotiated phased plan. The proven divergence is timing: Answer A seeks an automatic step-up after 90 clean days and litigation if Daniel then stalls, while Answer B advises waiting six months before litigating and proposes review only after six months or 12 months of negative tests. Following Answer B would likely leave Tessa unnecessarily confined to supervised contact for additional months despite a clean record supporting gradual restoration.\n\nProof (winner verdicts only).\nExact difference: A recommends filing if Daniel stalls after 90 clean days; B says, “Only litigate if Daniel refuses…after 6 months of compliance” and proposes review “after 6 months or 12 consecutive months.”\nDifferent conduct: A’s professional demands automatic advancement at Day 90 and files upon refusal; B’s professional accepts continued supervision and withholds litigation until at least six months.\nConcrete consequence: Tessa loses several months of unsupervised parenting time with Eli that A would timely seek to restore.\nRecord support: Daniel will consider a step-up after 90 additional clean days; Tessa previously exercised incident-free unsupervised weekends for 14 months, and the therapist supports gradual expansion with safeguards.\nMaterial magnitude: Months of parent-child contact and progression toward expanded custody are a substantial custodial and relational interest.\nLikelihood: B expressly directs counsel not to litigate until six months and structures even overnight review later than Daniel’s stated 90-day threshold.\nNo safe neutralization by ordinary verification: Correcting B’s delay requires redesigning its proposed timeline and litigation trigger, not merely checking a fact or authority.\n\n[B] rejected: “It resets the timeline of trust required by the court” — record lacks such a legal rule.\n[B] rejected: “Even if he wasn’t present at the crash, he knows you drink” — record lacks evidence that Eli knows of Tessa’s relapse or drinking.\n\nFailed candidate: Differences in testing frequency, monitoring, transportation, and setback mechanics — concrete consequence failed because both answers require materially similar sobriety and transportation safeguards subject to negotiation.\nFailed candidate: B’s unsupported statements about Eli’s knowledge and a legally required trust reset — no safe neutralization failed because ordinary record review rejects them without changing the recommended phased path.\nFailed candidate: Differences in tone, detail, and credibility framing — different conduct failed.\n\nHard stop. Because Answer B postponed litigation until six months and delayed review for overnight expansion, the reader would likely maintain supervised contact for several additional months instead of seeking automatic restoration after 90 clean days, causing Tessa and Eli to lose months of otherwise supportable unsupervised parenting time.",
  "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"
    ]
  }
}