{
  "question": "q30",
  "model_1": "Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL",
  "model_2": "Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL",
  "answer_a_was": "Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL",
  "answer_b_was": "Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL",
  "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": 8678,
    "completion_tokens": 1402,
    "total_tokens": 10080,
    "cost": 0.09629375,
    "is_byok": false,
    "prompt_tokens_details": {
      "cached_tokens": 0,
      "cache_write_tokens": 8675,
      "audio_tokens": 0,
      "video_tokens": 0
    },
    "cost_details": {
      "upstream_inference_cost": 0.09629375,
      "upstream_inference_prompt_cost": 0.05423375,
      "upstream_inference_completions_cost": 0.04206
    },
    "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 classifications and values: $140,000 known marital value, Mira’s $70,000 known share, provisional marital treatment of the second wallet, and a potential total recovery of $154,000 if intentional concealment is proved. Both reject the $50,000 offer and direct counsel to obtain targeted source, wallet, exchange, and donor discovery before final settlement; the differences in proposed discovery detail do not establish a different concrete outcome.\n\n[A] rejected: Ethereum “UTXO inputs/outputs” and “UTXO lineage” — internally inconsistent with Ethereum’s account-based transaction model.\n[B] rejected: production of private keys or seed phrases to prove ownership history — record lacks any basis that secret credentials establish historical source or are necessary for tracing.\n\nFailed candidates. Answer A’s broader discovery list — concrete consequence failed because the record does not show that the additional categories contain outcome-changing evidence.\nFailed candidates. Answer B’s omitted gift communications, tax records, and funding records — record support failed because their existence or effect on classification is not established.\nFailed candidates. Answer B’s private-key and seed-phrase request — no-safe-neutralization failed because a competent reader would reject it without reconstructing the tracing analysis.\nFailed candidates. Answer A’s Ethereum UTXO terminology — no-safe-neutralization failed because the reader can use the correctly identified addresses, hashes, and transaction history instead.\nFailed candidates. Answer B’s suggestion that omission effectively admits concealment — different conduct failed because it still conditions the surcharge on proving concealment.\nFailed candidates. Answer A’s more detailed conditional-settlement terms — likelihood failed because both answers recommend discovery rather than a present final settlement.\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"
    ]
  }
}