{
  "question": "q33",
  "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": 12773,
    "completion_tokens": 2171,
    "total_tokens": 14944,
    "cost": 0.1449575,
    "is_byok": false,
    "prompt_tokens_details": {
      "cached_tokens": 0,
      "cache_write_tokens": 12770,
      "audio_tokens": 0,
      "video_tokens": 0
    },
    "cost_details": {
      "upstream_inference_cost": 0.1449575,
      "upstream_inference_prompt_cost": 0.0798275,
      "upstream_inference_completions_cost": 0.06513
    },
    "completion_tokens_details": {
      "reasoning_tokens": 1800,
      "image_tokens": 0,
      "audio_tokens": 0
    }
  },
  "eval_prompt_sha256": "7e58b951cb86e4deba3b60fd01e9b9bd247ebe9883e1c9e43b24acffb1fd4667",
  "report": "TIE, FUNCTIONALLY EQUIVALENT.\n\nBasis. Both answers direct counsel to argue that residence stopped on April 20, 2021, that Idris accrued seven years, that none of the three dispositions is disqualifying or clock-stopping, and that counsel should substantiate good moral character and medical hardship through motions and documentary evidence. After ordinary verification rejects their isolated overstatements, both professionals remain on the same materially correct and safe litigation path.\n\n[B] rejected: “there is no basis for a negative good-moral-character finding” — record contradicts that absolute statement by supplying three adverse dispositions for evaluation under Rule 9.\n[A] rejected: the $2,500 was “not statutorily chargeable” — record lacks a rule making audit expenses invalid as restitution rather than merely excluded from Rule 7’s loss threshold.\n[A] rejected: Idris “must not depart the Commonwealth” — record lacks any departure rule or post-stop-time consequence supporting that instruction.\n\nFailed candidates. Admission-date versus day-after-admission caveat — different conduct failed; either calculation exceeds seven years.\nFailed candidates. Different confidence about good moral character — different conduct failed; both recommend presenting the same rehabilitation and character evidence.\nFailed candidates. Answer B’s express discretionary-relief caveat — different conduct failed; both recommend pursuing cancellation and developing equities.\nFailed candidates. Different motion labels and evidentiary formulations — concrete consequence failed; both seek the same dispositive findings using the same records.\nFailed candidates. Answer A’s restitution phrasing — different conduct failed after ordinary verification.\nFailed candidates. Answer A’s departure instruction — record support failed.\nFailed candidates. Answer A’s warning about a future second drug offense — likelihood failed on the supplied record.\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"
    ]
  }
}