{
  "question": "q32",
  "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": 16371,
    "completion_tokens": 1852,
    "total_tokens": 18223,
    "cost": 0.157875,
    "is_byok": false,
    "prompt_tokens_details": {
      "cached_tokens": 0,
      "cache_write_tokens": 16368,
      "audio_tokens": 0,
      "video_tokens": 0
    },
    "cost_details": {
      "upstream_inference_cost": 0.157875,
      "upstream_inference_prompt_cost": 0.102315,
      "upstream_inference_completions_cost": 0.05556
    },
    "completion_tokens_details": {
      "reasoning_tokens": 1488,
      "image_tokens": 0,
      "audio_tokens": 0
    }
  },
  "eval_prompt_sha256": "7e58b951cb86e4deba3b60fd01e9b9bd247ebe9883e1c9e43b24acffb1fd4667",
  "report": "TIE, FUNCTIONALLY EQUIVALENT.\n\nBasis. Both answers direct Arclight to produce the requested forms and roster by April 8 absent a written extension, cure the technical defects by April 26 without backdating, and deliver mismatch notices by April 21 while calculating separate eight-business-day periods from actual employee receipt. Both reject unsupported admissions and immediate adverse action, preserve the same defenses and records, and condition any later work action on final nonconfirmation or independently verified evidence. No demonstrated difference changes Arclight’s or any employee’s material position.\n\n[A] rejected: assertion that the proposed letter creates “false-statement exposure far worse than a paperwork penalty” — record lacks any false-statement rule or comparative penalty.\n[A] rejected: assertion that Marisol’s mismatch likely reflects a renewal not yet posted in Bureau records — record lacks the receipt and Bureau-record status.\n\nFailed candidates. Protective extension request on April 6 versus conditional request by April 8 — likelihood failed; Answer B still requires a timely request whenever delivery is realistically uncertain.\nFailed candidates. Staged production and partial-production fallback in Answer A — concrete consequence failed; the record establishes no different penalty or protection from partial timely production if the 47 forms are late.\nFailed candidates. April 15 versus April 16 internal mismatch-notice target — concrete consequence failed; both dates preserve the full statutory period measured from actual receipt.\nFailed candidates. Differences in correction, receipt-documentation, and communication detail — different conduct failed; both prescribe the same materially compliant procedures.\nFailed candidates. Answer B’s suggestion to await expiration of the protected period if final nonconfirmation arrives earlier — concrete consequence failed; no such timing event or resulting harm is established.\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"
    ]
  }
}