{
  "question": "q32",
  "model_1": "DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS",
  "model_2": "claude-opus-5",
  "answer_a_was": "claude-opus-5",
  "answer_b_was": "DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS",
  "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": 10675,
    "completion_tokens": 2431,
    "total_tokens": 13106,
    "cost": 0.139645,
    "is_byok": false,
    "prompt_tokens_details": {
      "cached_tokens": 0,
      "cache_write_tokens": 10672,
      "audio_tokens": 0,
      "video_tokens": 0
    },
    "cost_details": {
      "upstream_inference_cost": 0.139645,
      "upstream_inference_prompt_cost": 0.066715,
      "upstream_inference_completions_cost": 0.07293
    },
    "completion_tokens_details": {
      "reasoning_tokens": 1990,
      "image_tokens": 0,
      "audio_tokens": 0
    }
  },
  "eval_prompt_sha256": "7e58b951cb86e4deba3b60fd01e9b9bd247ebe9883e1c9e43b24acffb1fd4667",
  "provenance_date": "2026-08-08",
  "report": "TIE, FUNCTIONALLY EQUIVALENT.\n\nBasis. Both answers direct timely production by April 8, a written extension request if needed without relying on an ungranted request, limited responsive production, compliant current-dated corrections by April 26, individual notices by April 21, separately calculated employee response periods, verification of Marisol’s receipt, and no premature adverse action. After ordinary verification of the points logged below, both readers remain on the same materially correct and safe path through cure or final confirmation.\n\n[B] rejected: the Bureau might count the receipt day as day one — governing rules expressly calculate the periods after receipt.\n[A] rejected: an employee’s decision not to contest can itself change the work-action analysis — Rule 9 permits suspension only after final nonconfirmation or independent verified evidence.\n[A] rejected: the employees’ explanations are already credible or likely correct — record contains only their statements and lacks Marisol’s receipt facts.\n[A] rejected: the proposed letter creates false-statement exposure “far worse” than a paperwork penalty — record lacks the governing rule and consequence.\n\nFailed candidate: Protective extension request versus conditional request — Likelihood failed; the vendor promises delivery before the deadline, and B requires a request if retrieval appears at risk.\nFailed candidate: Staged production versus one complete April 8 production — Concrete consequence failed; both produce the required records by the same deadline.\nFailed candidate: Legible correction on the preserved original versus a separate correction document — Concrete consequence failed; both methods preserve the original information and provide a current date, corrector, and reason.\nFailed candidate: Handling the two asserted transposition errors — Concrete consequence failed; both preserve employment, deliver notices, and route evidence through the Bureau process.\nFailed candidate: Additional Marisol receipt inquiries in A — Different conduct failed; both require verification of filing, category, timing, and extension effect before any work decision.\nFailed candidate: Rejected counting and non-contest statements — No safe neutralization failed; the supplied rules and each answer’s operative calendar and final-action instructions resolve them without reconstructing omitted analysis.\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"
    ]
  }
}