{
  "question": "q32",
  "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": 7135,
    "completion_tokens": 2398,
    "total_tokens": 9533,
    "cost": 0.11653,
    "is_byok": false,
    "prompt_tokens_details": {
      "cached_tokens": 0,
      "cache_write_tokens": 7132,
      "audio_tokens": 0,
      "video_tokens": 0
    },
    "cost_details": {
      "upstream_inference_cost": 0.11653,
      "upstream_inference_prompt_cost": 0.04459,
      "upstream_inference_completions_cost": 0.07194
    },
    "completion_tokens_details": {
      "reasoning_tokens": 2033,
      "image_tokens": 0,
      "audio_tokens": 0
    }
  },
  "eval_prompt_sha256": "7e58b951cb86e4deba3b60fd01e9b9bd247ebe9883e1c9e43b24acffb1fd4667",
  "provenance_date": "2026-08-08",
  "report": "TIE, FUNCTIONALLY EQUIVALENT.\n\nBasis. Both answers direct production of the requested forms and payroll roster by April 8, cure by April 26 without backdating, delivery of mismatch notices by April 21, individualized response periods based on actual receipt, and no immediate suspension. Both also reject unsupported admissions and leave all three employees working while the tentative-mismatch process proceeds; no difference establishes a materially different client outcome on this record.\n\n[A] rejected: suggestion that receipt might count as day one — governing rules specify periods “after receipt.”\n[B] rejected: “Friday, April 9?” — internally inconsistent with its immediately following April 8 calculation.\n[B] rejected: fixed April 21–May 3 monitoring window — record makes each response period depend on actual employee receipt.\n[B] rejected: law requires waiting for the Bureau process to conclude before verifying Marisol’s receipt — cited rules contain no such requirement.\n\nFailed candidate: A’s precautionary earlier cure date — Concrete consequence failed.\nFailed candidate: separate correction addendum versus B’s dated correction on the original or addendum — Concrete consequence failed.\nFailed candidate: A directs employer verification of Marisol’s receipt while B directs submission to the Bureau — Concrete consequence failed because the receipt’s validity and effect are absent from the record and both continue employment.\nFailed candidate: B omits suspension based on later independent verified evidence — Different conduct failed because no such evidence currently exists.\nFailed candidate: B’s fixed monitoring range — No safe neutralization failed because ordinary checking of the documented actual-receipt date corrects it.\nFailed candidate: B’s April 9 false start — Different conduct failed because B expressly corrects the deadline to April 8.\n\nHard stop. It 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"
    ]
  }
}