{
  "question": "q34",
  "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": 8401,
    "completion_tokens": 1336,
    "total_tokens": 9737,
    "cost": 0.0925825,
    "is_byok": false,
    "prompt_tokens_details": {
      "cached_tokens": 0,
      "cache_write_tokens": 8398,
      "audio_tokens": 0,
      "video_tokens": 0
    },
    "cost_details": {
      "upstream_inference_cost": 0.0925825,
      "upstream_inference_prompt_cost": 0.0525025,
      "upstream_inference_completions_cost": 0.04008
    },
    "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 direct Northbank to reserve $354,922.40 now, preserve evidence, investigate the missing A and C facts, avoid conceding status prematurely, consider prospective correction, and evaluate a closing agreement after accurate fact development. No difference establishes a materially different client outcome on the supplied record.\n\n[A] rejected: hypothetical loss-of-credit sensitivity and associated interest figures — record establishes timely forms and the stated interest figures do not follow the supplied rates.\n[A] rejected: categorical statement that installers deriving 90–100% of receipts from Northbank cannot satisfy element C — supplied rules establish relevance, not a dispositive threshold.\n[A] rejected: suggested element-B carve-outs involving warranty, roof-repair, third-party, or specialized work — record lacks any such work.\n\nFailed candidate: Immediate prospective reclassification — concrete consequence failed because continued installer use or 2027 compensation is not established, and Answer B also recommends prospective correction.\nFailed candidate: Definite pursuit versus possible pursuit of a closing agreement — concrete consequence failed because agency approval and the investigation’s results are unknown.\nFailed candidate: Answer A’s more extensive preservation protocol — likelihood failed because no imminent deletion event or missing evidence is established.\nFailed candidate: Answer A’s unsupported sensitivity and categorical statements — no safe neutralization failed because ordinary verification rejects them without changing the shared course of action.\nHard stop. The required sentence cannot be completed with a concrete, record-supported consequence.",
  "judge_reasoning": "**Evaluating candidate output**\n\nI need to gather all the failed candidates, output them on one screen, and include lines to neutralize any rejected points. It seems I should log these points because there’s some inaccurate sensitivity involved. There's also a claim regarding \"if credit lost,\" which might contradict timely forms—should I consider this as rejected content? We should log it. Plus, another unsupported claim about a \"converts\" penalty—concealment later could indicate willfulness, rather than it being automatic.",
  "_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"
    ]
  }
}