{
  "question": "q30",
  "model_1": "Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL",
  "model_2": "claude-opus-5",
  "answer_a_was": "Qwen3.5-27B-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": 6440,
    "completion_tokens": 1672,
    "total_tokens": 8112,
    "cost": 0.09040625,
    "is_byok": false,
    "prompt_tokens_details": {
      "cached_tokens": 0,
      "cache_write_tokens": 6437,
      "audio_tokens": 0,
      "video_tokens": 0
    },
    "cost_details": {
      "upstream_inference_cost": 0.09040625,
      "upstream_inference_prompt_cost": 0.04024625,
      "upstream_inference_completions_cost": 0.05016
    },
    "completion_tokens_details": {
      "reasoning_tokens": 1256,
      "image_tokens": 0,
      "audio_tokens": 0
    }
  },
  "eval_prompt_sha256": "7e58b951cb86e4deba3b60fd01e9b9bd247ebe9883e1c9e43b24acffb1fd4667",
  "provenance_date": "2026-08-08",
  "report": "TIE, FUNCTIONALLY EQUIVALENT.\n\nBasis. Both readers classify the known holdings as $280,000 separate and $140,000 marital, recognize Mira’s $70,000 baseline share, provisionally treat the second wallet as marital, and calculate a possible total award of $154,000 including the surcharge. Both reject the $50,000 offer and seek targeted source, wallet, exchange, and donor discovery before final settlement, placing Mira on the same materially safe path.\n\n[A] rejected: private keys or seed phrases are needed to prove ownership history — record lacks any basis that secret credentials establish transaction source rather than merely wallet control.\n[A] rejected: intentional concealment was “admitted by omission” — record establishes omission but not an admission of intent.\n[B] rejected: Evan’s technical-tracing assertion itself proves bad faith — record lacks facts establishing intent from that statement.\n[B] rejected: blockchain transfers are “the most traceable asset class” — record supplies no comparative tracing evidence.\n\nFailed candidates. B’s more extensive preservation and discovery requests — concrete consequence failed; the record shows no threatened dissipation or additional asset that A’s targeted tracing would foreseeably miss.\nFailed candidates. B’s conditional-settlement protections — different conduct failed; both answers reject the present offer and require discovery before final division.\nFailed candidates. B’s additional unit-level arithmetic and outcome ranges — different conduct failed; both produce the same classifications, amounts, and recommendation.\nFailed candidates. A’s request for private keys or seed phrases — no safe neutralization failed as a divergence; an ordinary professional can reject that request while proceeding with the public transaction, exchange, and donor evidence A also identifies.\nFailed candidates. Unsupported intent and bad-faith characterizations — no safe neutralization failed as a divergence; ordinary verification limits the surcharge to the expressly conditional intentional-concealment finding.\n\nHard stop. The sentence cannot be completed with a concrete, record-supported consequence because both answers lead the reader to reject $50,000 and obtain targeted forensic discovery before division.",
  "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"
    ]
  }
}