{
  "question": "q33",
  "model_1": "DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS",
  "model_2": "Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL",
  "answer_a_was": "Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL",
  "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": 7319,
    "completion_tokens": 1340,
    "total_tokens": 8659,
    "cost": 0.08594,
    "is_byok": false,
    "prompt_tokens_details": {
      "cached_tokens": 0,
      "cache_write_tokens": 7316,
      "audio_tokens": 0,
      "video_tokens": 0
    },
    "cost_details": {
      "upstream_inference_cost": 0.08594,
      "upstream_inference_prompt_cost": 0.04574,
      "upstream_inference_completions_cost": 0.0402
    },
    "completion_tokens_details": {
      "reasoning_tokens": 1034,
      "image_tokens": 0,
      "audio_tokens": 0
    }
  },
  "eval_prompt_sha256": "7e58b951cb86e4deba3b60fd01e9b9bd247ebe9883e1c9e43b24acffb1fd4667",
  "provenance_date": "2026-08-08",
  "report": "TIE, FUNCTIONALLY EQUIVALENT.\n\nBasis. Both answers place counsel on the same material path: assert stop time on April 20, 2021, establish seven years as of February 1, 2021, defeat each offense-based bar, prove good moral character and medical hardship, and proceed with the cancellation application. Answer B treats good moral character more cautiously, but both identify the actual adverse and rehabilitative record and recommend materially equivalent supporting evidence, so no different client outcome is demonstrated.\n\n[A] rejected: “four-weeks-per-night” — record says four nights per week.\n[A] rejected: filing immediately will “lock in” the application date — record lacks any rule giving that date legal effect.\n[A] rejected: the government’s residence argument is a “jurisdictional challenge” — record lacks a jurisdictional rule.\n[A] rejected: a threshold ruling “prevents removal before the hardship merits are heard” — record lacks a procedural rule establishing that effect.\n\nFailed candidates. Good-moral-character framing and additional character evidence — concrete consequence failed.\nFailed candidates. Answer A’s omission of an express fraud-conviction determination — different conduct failed.\nFailed candidates. Answer A’s unsupported procedural claims — no safe-neutralization element failed.\nFailed candidates. Answer A’s infusion-frequency typo — no safe-neutralization element failed.\nFailed candidates. Different confidence concerning eligibility and hardship — different conduct failed.\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"
    ]
  }
}