{
  "question": "q30",
  "model_1": "DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS",
  "model_2": "Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL",
  "answer_a_was": "Qwen3.8-27B-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": 8148,
    "completion_tokens": 1317,
    "total_tokens": 9465,
    "cost": 0.09043125,
    "is_byok": false,
    "prompt_tokens_details": {
      "cached_tokens": 0,
      "cache_write_tokens": 8145,
      "audio_tokens": 0,
      "video_tokens": 0
    },
    "cost_details": {
      "upstream_inference_cost": 0.09043125,
      "upstream_inference_prompt_cost": 0.05092125,
      "upstream_inference_completions_cost": 0.03951
    },
    "completion_tokens_details": {
      "reasoning_tokens": 1034,
      "image_tokens": 0,
      "audio_tokens": 0
    }
  },
  "eval_prompt_sha256": "7e58b951cb86e4deba3b60fd01e9b9bd247ebe9883e1c9e43b24acffb1fd4667",
  "report": "TIE, FUNCTIONALLY EQUIVALENT.\n\nBasis. Both answers reach the same material path: classify the known holdings as $280,000 separate and $140,000 marital, value Mira’s known share at $70,000, provisionally classify the second wallet as marital, preserve the possible $24,000 surcharge, reject the $50,000 offer, and seek targeted forensic discovery before settlement. Their differences in discovery detail and conditional-settlement language do not produce a demonstrated difference in Mira’s position.\n\nA rejected: references to ETH “UTXO inputs/outputs” and “UTXO lineage” — internally inconsistent with the identified account-based Ethereum transactions.\n\nFailed candidates. A’s Ethereum UTXO terminology — different conduct failed because ordinary verification safely corrects the terminology without changing the tracing sought.\nFailed candidates. A’s broader list of forensic records — concrete consequence failed because the record does not show that B’s targeted exchange, wallet, transaction, donor, and tax requests would leave the source unresolved.\nFailed candidates. A’s conditional-settlement safeguards — different conduct failed because both answers direct Mira to reject the present offer and obtain discovery before final settlement.\nFailed candidates. B’s requests for records concerning already traced holdings — concrete consequence failed because no delay, cost, or loss affecting Mira is demonstrated.\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"
    ]
  }
}