{
  "question": "q31",
  "model_1": "DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS",
  "model_2": "Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL",
  "answer_a_was": "DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS",
  "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": 4910,
    "completion_tokens": 755,
    "total_tokens": 5665,
    "cost": 0.05333375,
    "is_byok": false,
    "prompt_tokens_details": {
      "cached_tokens": 0,
      "cache_write_tokens": 4907,
      "audio_tokens": 0,
      "video_tokens": 0
    },
    "cost_details": {
      "upstream_inference_cost": 0.05333375,
      "upstream_inference_prompt_cost": 0.03068375,
      "upstream_inference_completions_cost": 0.02265
    },
    "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 put Nora on the same material path: treat the property and fixed-payment provisions as enforceable, abandon whole-agreement and later-unconscionability challenges, and seek only maintenance necessary to avoid public-assistance eligibility. Answer B’s unsupported statements about exceeding that threshold and immediate payment would be rejected by ordinary verification against the supplied rule and record.\n\n[B] rejected: court may order maintenance “more generous than the strict public assistance threshold,” and Nora should demand support exceeding it — cited rule permits only support necessary to avoid public-assistance eligibility.\n[B] rejected: the $150,000 payment “is due now” and Daniel should pay it immediately — record lacks whether the payment was previously made or remains outstanding.\n\nFailed candidates. Maintenance demand above the public-assistance threshold — no safe neutralization by ordinary verification failed.\nFailed candidates. Immediate entitlement to an unpaid $150,000 payment — record support failed.\nFailed candidates. Characterizing the valuation discrepancy as “minor” rather than merely probably adequate — different conduct 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"
    ]
  }
}