{
  "question": "q30",
  "model_1": "Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL",
  "model_2": "claude-opus-5",
  "answer_a_was": "Qwen3.8-27B-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": 9193,
    "completion_tokens": 1349,
    "total_tokens": 10542,
    "cost": 0.0979225,
    "is_byok": false,
    "prompt_tokens_details": {
      "cached_tokens": 0,
      "cache_write_tokens": 9190,
      "audio_tokens": 0,
      "video_tokens": 0
    },
    "cost_details": {
      "upstream_inference_cost": 0.0979225,
      "upstream_inference_prompt_cost": 0.0574525,
      "upstream_inference_completions_cost": 0.04047
    },
    "completion_tokens_details": {
      "reasoning_tokens": 1034,
      "image_tokens": 0,
      "audio_tokens": 0
    }
  },
  "eval_prompt_sha256": "7e58b951cb86e4deba3b60fd01e9b9bd247ebe9883e1c9e43b24acffb1fd4667",
  "report": "TIE, FUNCTIONALLY EQUIVALENT.\n\nBasis. Both readers calculate the known holdings as $280,000 separate and $140,000 marital, identify Mira’s $70,000 baseline share, provisionally classify the second wallet as marital, and calculate a possible total recovery of $154,000 if intentional concealment is proved. Both reject the $50,000 release and pursue targeted tracing before final settlement, leaving Mira on the same materially correct and safe path.\n\n[A] rejected: references to Ethereum “UTXO inputs/outputs” and “UTXO lineage” — internally inconsistent with Ethereum’s account-based transaction model.\n[A] rejected: conditional example requiring the $24,000 surcharge merely because the wallet remains untraced — cited Rule 9 requires intentional concealment.\nFailed candidates. Ethereum UTXO terminology — Different conduct failed; the reader still obtains transaction hashes, addresses, and account-based transfer records.\nFailed candidates. Automatic surcharge language in Answer A’s conditional example — No safe neutralization failed; ordinary verification against Rule 9 supplies the express intent requirement without reconstructing the analysis.\nFailed candidates. Differences in proposed discovery scope and settlement protections — Concrete consequence failed; both preserve the claims and obtain the source, control, and donor evidence before release.\nFailed candidates. Answer B’s additional sanctions, injunction, and clawback suggestions — Likelihood failed; they are expressly conditional and the record does not establish that either reader would pursue them now.\n\nHard stop. The required 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"
    ]
  }
}