{
  "question": "q30",
  "model_1": "DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS",
  "model_2": "Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL",
  "answer_a_was": "Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL",
  "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": 5395,
    "completion_tokens": 751,
    "total_tokens": 6146,
    "cost": 0.056245,
    "is_byok": false,
    "prompt_tokens_details": {
      "cached_tokens": 0,
      "cache_write_tokens": 5392,
      "audio_tokens": 0,
      "video_tokens": 0
    },
    "cost_details": {
      "upstream_inference_cost": 0.056245,
      "upstream_inference_prompt_cost": 0.033715,
      "upstream_inference_completions_cost": 0.02253
    },
    "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 correctly trace the known holdings, calculate Mira’s $70,000 known marital share and $154,000 potential total recovery, reject the $50,000 offer, and recommend targeted forensic discovery before settlement. Their differences do not alter the materially correct and safe course: preserve the presumptive-marital claim, investigate the alleged gift, and seek the surcharge only upon proof of intentional concealment.\n\n[A] rejected: implication that the sworn omission itself admits intentional concealment — record establishes omission but not intent.\n[A] rejected: private keys or seed phrases would prove ownership history — record lacks a need for secret credentials rather than addresses, transaction records, and signing or ownership evidence.\n\nFailed candidates. A’s intent wording — different conduct failed.\nFailed candidates. A’s request for private keys or seed phrases — likelihood failed.\nFailed candidates. B’s more detailed transaction-hash and exchange-record list — concrete consequence failed.\nFailed candidates. B’s broader request for records concerning already traced holdings — material magnitude failed.\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"
    ]
  }
}