{
  "question": "q31",
  "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": 7890,
    "completion_tokens": 1389,
    "total_tokens": 9279,
    "cost": 0.09097875,
    "is_byok": false,
    "prompt_tokens_details": {
      "cached_tokens": 0,
      "cache_write_tokens": 7887,
      "audio_tokens": 0,
      "video_tokens": 0
    },
    "cost_details": {
      "upstream_inference_cost": 0.09097875,
      "upstream_inference_prompt_cost": 0.04930875,
      "upstream_inference_completions_cost": 0.04167
    },
    "completion_tokens_details": {
      "reasoning_tokens": 1034,
      "image_tokens": 0,
      "audio_tokens": 0
    }
  },
  "eval_prompt_sha256": "7e58b951cb86e4deba3b60fd01e9b9bd247ebe9883e1c9e43b24acffb1fd4667",
  "report": "TIE, FUNCTIONALLY EQUIVALENT.\n\nBasis. Both answers place Nora on the same material path: accept likely enforcement of the separate-property and $150,000 provisions, abandon whole-agreement challenges based on lack of counsel or later hardship, and seek maintenance only as necessary to avoid public assistance. Their differences do not establish materially different professional conduct or client outcomes.\n\n[A] rejected: treating the $150,000 payment as potentially reducing maintenance — record lacks public-assistance eligibility and resource-calculation rules.\n[A] rejected: seeking separate medical-cost support or periodic review — record lacks rules authorizing those remedies.\n[B] rejected: suggesting a court might award maintenance more generous than the public-assistance threshold — Rule 6 limits support to what is necessary to avoid eligibility.\n[B] rejected: requesting inflation and future-needs adjustments as part of the legal entitlement — record lacks modification and prospective-support rules.\n[B] rejected: assuming the $150,000 remains unpaid and demanding immediate payment — record lacks payment-status facts.\n\nFailed candidate: A’s conditional treatment versus B’s immediate demand for the $150,000 — no safe neutralization failed; ordinary verification of payment status resolves it.\nFailed candidate: A’s broader medical-cost and review proposals versus B’s inflation-adjustment proposal — record support failed.\nFailed candidate: B’s categorical disclosure language versus A’s probabilistic language — different conduct failed.\nFailed candidate: B’s characterization of Daniel’s position as an admission versus A’s use of the supplied “does not contend” fact — concrete consequence failed.\nFailed candidate: A’s proposed release and credibility-based negotiation detail — likelihood of a different material outcome failed.\n\nHard stop. The hard-stop 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"
    ]
  }
}