{
  "question": "q30",
  "model_1": "DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS",
  "model_2": "claude-opus-5",
  "answer_a_was": "claude-opus-5",
  "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": 5910,
    "completion_tokens": 806,
    "total_tokens": 6716,
    "cost": 0.06111375,
    "is_byok": false,
    "prompt_tokens_details": {
      "cached_tokens": 0,
      "cache_write_tokens": 5907,
      "audio_tokens": 0,
      "video_tokens": 0
    },
    "cost_details": {
      "upstream_inference_cost": 0.06111375,
      "upstream_inference_prompt_cost": 0.03693375,
      "upstream_inference_completions_cost": 0.02418
    },
    "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 calculate the same separate and marital shares, provisionally classify the second wallet as marital, identify Mira’s $70,000 baseline and $154,000 potential recovery, reject the $50,000 offer, and direct counsel to obtain targeted forensic discovery before final division. Their differences do not establish materially different client conduct or outcomes.\n\n[A] rejected: blockchain transfers are “the most traceable asset class” and Evan’s contrary assertion is itself evidence of bad faith — record lacks comparative traceability facts or a rule making that assertion evidence of intent.\n\nFailed candidate: Answer A’s broader preservation, injunction, address-clustering, sanctions, and fee measures — concrete consequence failed because the record does not establish imminent dissipation, additional wallets, or a resulting loss avoided only by those measures.\nFailed candidate: Answer A’s conditional-settlement structure versus Answer B’s discovery-before-settlement recommendation — different conduct failed because both direct immediate forensic discovery and rejection of the present offer before final resolution.\nFailed candidate: Differences in the listed exchange, wallet, and donor records — concrete consequence failed because both seek the source, ownership, transaction, and donative-intent evidence needed to resolve the second wallet.\nFailed candidate: Answer A’s unsupported traceability and bad-faith assertions — record support 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"
    ]
  }
}