{
  "question": "q31",
  "model_1": "DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS",
  "model_2": "claude-opus-5",
  "answer_a_was": "DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS",
  "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": 6076,
    "completion_tokens": 1873,
    "total_tokens": 7949,
    "cost": 0.09416125,
    "is_byok": false,
    "prompt_tokens_details": {
      "cached_tokens": 0,
      "cache_write_tokens": 6073,
      "audio_tokens": 0,
      "video_tokens": 0
    },
    "cost_details": {
      "upstream_inference_cost": 0.09416125,
      "upstream_inference_prompt_cost": 0.03797125,
      "upstream_inference_completions_cost": 0.05619
    },
    "completion_tokens_details": {
      "reasoning_tokens": 1532,
      "image_tokens": 0,
      "audio_tokens": 0
    }
  },
  "eval_prompt_sha256": "7e58b951cb86e4deba3b60fd01e9b9bd247ebe9883e1c9e43b24acffb1fd4667",
  "provenance_date": "2026-08-08",
  "report": "TIE, FUNCTIONALLY EQUIVALENT.\n\nBasis. Both answers correct Conclusions 1 and 2, preserve Conclusions 3 through 5, and place Nora on the same material path: enforce the property, business-appreciation, and $150,000 provisions while seeking only the maintenance necessary to avoid public-assistance eligibility. Answer B’s additional negotiation proposals and procedural assertions do not establish a different legally available recovery or a concrete, record-supported outcome.\n\n[B] rejected: a Rule 6 support order is inherently revisitable and a permanent release may supersede it — record lacks rules governing modification and releases.\n[B] rejected: interest, escrow, life insurance, liens, and a benefits-linked review mechanism are available remedies — record lacks authority establishing their availability.\n[B] rejected: Daniel will pay above the statutory floor to obtain finality — record lacks evidence of Daniel’s settlement preferences.\n[B] rejected: health-coverage costs typically drive the support amount — record lacks applicable program thresholds and expense evidence.\nFailed candidate: Preserving the $2.1 million valuation issue for negotiation and discovery — concrete consequence failed; no different settlement or adjudicated result is established.\nFailed candidate: Seeking additional evidence, security, and a structured support package — record support failed; the supplied rules do not establish entitlement to those additional terms.\nFailed candidate: Immediate payment with interest on the $150,000 — record support failed as to payment timing and interest.\nFailed candidate: Answer B’s stronger execution-time arithmetic and certainty language — different conduct failed; both readers reject unconscionability and pursue the same relief.\nHard stop. The sentence cannot be completed with a concrete, record-supported consequence.",
  "judge_reasoning": "**Evaluating candidate divergences**\n\nI'm considering that Candidate B calculates a timeline of 14 days, drafting 32 days before the wedding and signing 18 days before—so that checks out. B believes that their \"comparable balance sheets/symmetrical\" argument makes unconscionability stronger than A's. There's also the point about a valuation gap; B's approach involves raising the issue in negotiations, whereas A's is just adequate. Finally, B's strategic focuses on broad support could potentially enhance settlement outcomes. There's definitely a lot to consider here!",
  "_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"
    ]
  }
}