{
  "question": "q31",
  "model_1": "Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL",
  "model_2": "claude-opus-5",
  "answer_a_was": "claude-opus-5",
  "answer_b_was": "Qwen3.8-27B-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": 9056,
    "completion_tokens": 1258,
    "total_tokens": 10314,
    "cost": 0.09433625,
    "is_byok": false,
    "prompt_tokens_details": {
      "cached_tokens": 0,
      "cache_write_tokens": 9053,
      "audio_tokens": 0,
      "video_tokens": 0
    },
    "cost_details": {
      "upstream_inference_cost": 0.09433625,
      "upstream_inference_prompt_cost": 0.05659625,
      "upstream_inference_completions_cost": 0.03774
    },
    "completion_tokens_details": {
      "reasoning_tokens": 945,
      "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 enforcement of the property and business provisions, demand the vested $150,000 payment, and seek only the maintenance necessary to avoid public-assistance eligibility. Both correctly reject Conclusions 1 and 2 while preserving Conclusions 3 through 5; no demonstrated difference changes Nora’s likely relief or negotiating position.\n\n[A] rejected: a Rule 6 order is inherently revisitable — record lacks rules governing modification or finality.\n[A] rejected: a permanent negotiated release may govern despite later need — record lacks rules governing such releases.\n[B] rejected: Daniel’s current wealth is highly relevant to the Rule 6 support calculation — supplied rule limits relief by Nora’s public-assistance need and provides no wealth-based calculation rule.\n[B] rejected: litigation creates reputational costs for Daniel — record lacks supporting facts.\n\nFailed candidates. Treatment of the $150,000 as an available resource when calculating maintenance — different conduct failed; both require assessment of Nora’s assets and public-assistance eligibility.\nFailed candidates. Additional settlement protections proposed by Answer A — concrete consequence failed; the record does not establish their availability or acceptance.\nFailed candidates. Investigation of the $2.1 million valuation — likelihood failed; both identify the discrepancy but conclude disclosure was probably adequate.\nFailed candidates. Unsupported modification, release, wealth-calculation, and reputational assertions — record support failed.\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"
    ]
  }
}