{
  "question": "q34",
  "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": 6508,
    "completion_tokens": 772,
    "total_tokens": 7280,
    "cost": 0.06383125,
    "is_byok": false,
    "prompt_tokens_details": {
      "cached_tokens": 0,
      "cache_write_tokens": 6505,
      "audio_tokens": 0,
      "video_tokens": 0
    },
    "cost_details": {
      "upstream_inference_cost": 0.06383125,
      "upstream_inference_prompt_cost": 0.04067125,
      "upstream_inference_completions_cost": 0.02316
    },
    "completion_tokens_details": {
      "reasoning_tokens": 516,
      "image_tokens": 0,
      "audio_tokens": 0
    }
  },
  "eval_prompt_sha256": "7e58b951cb86e4deba3b60fd01e9b9bd247ebe9883e1c9e43b24acffb1fd4667",
  "provenance_date": "2026-08-08",
  "report": "TIE, FUNCTIONALLY EQUIVALENT.\n\nBasis. Both answers reject a zero reserve, calculate the same $354,922.40 nonwillful reserve, treat element B as likely failed, and direct Northbank to preserve records and investigate elements A and C before conceding status or choosing a final agency position. Their differences do not alter Northbank’s material legal, financial, or procedural path.\n\n[A] rejected: “Contracts allow substitutes” — record lacks any contractual substitution provision.\n\nFailed candidates. Answer B’s broader fact-gathering and preservation lists — different conduct failed; Answer A already requires preservation and investigation of the material control and independent-trade facts.\nFailed candidates. Answer A’s conditional closing-agreement recommendation if elements A and C are favorable — concrete consequence failed; both answers defer the final agency position and contemplate a closing agreement after investigation.\nFailed candidates. Answer A’s unsupported contractual substitution statement — no safe neutralization failed to be proven; ordinary verification rejects it, leaving substitution as an expressly unresolved fact in both answers.\nFailed candidates. Differences in certainty concerning element B — different conduct failed; both readers reserve for reclassification and avoid a premature concession.\n\nHard stop. The sentence cannot be completed with a concrete, record-supported consequence.",
  "judge_reasoning": "**Evaluating output format**\n\nI need to judge the exact format of the output and compare divergences, potentially leading to a tie. I want to identify errors or omissions. Answer A suggests contracts allow substitutes, but it seems only agreements are the actual facts. There's no substitution term stated, making A's claim unsupported. Answer B mentions insurance supporting C, which seems fine. I need to calculate net tax totals for potential penalties as well, ensuring clarity in my classification and final decisions.**Analyzing candidate recommendations**\n\nA suggests recording liability on the books, while B recommends reserving funds now; they seem equivalent in essence. B states that unless there are contrary facts about pricing, the argument doesn't stand, but it seems B may still fail under certain assumptions. I need to summarize failed candidates clearly, addressing divergences like A's unsupported substitute contract and B’s more complete factual planning. It’s important to follow output specifications carefully, ensuring no headers are used in the final details.**Addressing false claims**\n\nI need to point out the false claim that \"contracts allow substitutions,\" as the record lacks a contractual substitution provision. A also mentions, \"If the installer is sick,\" but that's not a strong assertion. Since A states \"Contracts allow substitutes,\" I think I need to reject that. This could indeed undermine A's position. A typical verification shows that the supplied contract facts are missing this critical substitution detail, which means I'll need to investigate further.",
  "_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"
    ]
  }
}