{
  "question": "q29",
  "model_1": "Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL",
  "model_2": "claude-opus-5",
  "answer_a_was": "Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL",
  "answer_b_was": "claude-opus-5",
  "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": 10831,
    "completion_tokens": 1970,
    "total_tokens": 12801,
    "cost": 0.12679,
    "is_byok": false,
    "prompt_tokens_details": {
      "cached_tokens": 0,
      "cache_write_tokens": 10828,
      "audio_tokens": 0,
      "video_tokens": 0
    },
    "cost_details": {
      "upstream_inference_cost": 0.12679,
      "upstream_inference_prompt_cost": 0.06769,
      "upstream_inference_completions_cost": 0.0591
    },
    "completion_tokens_details": {
      "reasoning_tokens": 1552,
      "image_tokens": 0,
      "audio_tokens": 0
    }
  },
  "eval_prompt_sha256": "7e58b951cb86e4deba3b60fd01e9b9bd247ebe9883e1c9e43b24acffb1fd4667",
  "report": "TIE, FUNCTIONALLY EQUIVALENT.\n\nBasis. Both answers place Tessa on the same material path: reject emergency or immediate-equal-time litigation, candidly acknowledge the relapse, impaired driving, and nondisclosure, negotiate Daniel’s 90-day framework with objective safeguards, and build a sustained record before seeking phased expansion. Their differing proposed schedules and mechanics do not establish a record-supported difference in Eli’s safety or Tessa’s ultimate custody position.\n\n[A] rejected: filing tomorrow will likely cause delay, increased stress, and a worse credibility record — record lacks an adjudicator or procedural evidence establishing those outcomes.\n[A] rejected: equal time may become appropriate at 180 days — record lacks future treatment, testing, therapist, and safety evidence.\n[B] rejected: saying the relapse “does not count” could itself cost months of parenting time and create findings lasting for years — record lacks an adjudicator or procedural evidence establishing those outcomes.\n[B] rejected: near-equal time is plausible within approximately one year — record lacks future treatment, testing, therapist, criminal-case, and co-parenting evidence.\n\nFailed candidates. Post-90 expansion pace—record support failed; the record does not establish whether daytime visits, alternating weekends, or another increment will then be safe.\nFailed candidates. Timing of equal-time review—record support failed; future compliance and professional recommendations are unknown.\nFailed candidates. Transportation reinstatement conditions—record support failed; the criminal disposition, licensing status, treatment evidence, and future safety assessment are unknown.\nFailed candidates. Automatic advancement versus discretionary reviews—concrete consequence failed; either structure remains subject to agreement or court approval and future compliance.\nFailed candidates. Setback periods, testing frequency, supervision cost, and reporting mechanics—material magnitude failed; no concrete client outcome from these negotiable details is established.\nFailed candidates. Characterization of nondisclosure as serious versus outcome-controlling—different conduct failed; both require full acknowledgment and a prompt-disclosure safeguard.\n\nHard stop. The sentence cannot be completed with a concrete, record-supported consequence.",
  "judge_reasoning": "**Evaluating filing strategy**\n\nIt looks like I'm outlining a plan regarding some shared material and immediate filing needs. I want to focus on negotiating a 90-day objective to build a record and then file if there's no agreement. As for the failed candidates, I see issues with establishing clear schedules and transportation triggers. I’m contemplating waiting to complete the 90 days before filing or setting a deadline if things stall after that point. It's all a bit complex!",
  "_public_record": {
    "type": "published record",
    "policy": "../../PUBLIC_RECORD_POLICY.md",
    "transformations": [
      "non-substantive machine metadata normalized",
      "published-record annotation added"
    ]
  }
}