{
  "question": "q34",
  "model_1": "Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL",
  "model_2": "claude-opus-5",
  "answer_a_was": "claude-opus-5",
  "answer_b_was": "Qwen3.5-27B-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": 8053,
    "completion_tokens": 2307,
    "total_tokens": 10360,
    "cost": 0.1195375,
    "is_byok": false,
    "prompt_tokens_details": {
      "cached_tokens": 0,
      "cache_write_tokens": 8050,
      "audio_tokens": 0,
      "video_tokens": 0
    },
    "cost_details": {
      "upstream_inference_cost": 0.1195375,
      "upstream_inference_prompt_cost": 0.0503275,
      "upstream_inference_completions_cost": 0.06921
    },
    "completion_tokens_details": {
      "reasoning_tokens": 1917,
      "image_tokens": 0,
      "audio_tokens": 0
    }
  },
  "eval_prompt_sha256": "7e58b951cb86e4deba3b60fd01e9b9bd247ebe9883e1c9e43b24acffb1fd4667",
  "provenance_date": "2026-08-08",
  "report": "TIE, FUNCTIONALLY EQUIVALENT.\n\nBasis. Both answers conclude that element B likely fails, reject reliance on contractual labels, calculate the same $354,922.40 reserve, and direct preservation and investigation of control and independent-trade facts before any concession. Both also recommend prospective correction and pursuing a closing agreement after fact development, leaving Northbank on the same materially safe path.\n\n[B] rejected: “Contracts allow substitutes” — record lacks any contractual substitution term and identifies substitution rights as unknown.\n[A] rejected: possible exclusions from “covered compensation” — record designates the full $980,000 and $1,600,000 as covered compensation.\n[A] rejected: lost-credit interest figures of $39,200 and $51,600 — record establishes timely forms, and the supplied rates do not produce those figures.\n[A] rejected: installers deriving 90–100% of receipts from Northbank “will not satisfy” element C — supplied law provides no percentage-based dispositive rule.\n\nFailed candidate: B’s substitution-right misstatement — no safe neutralization failed; ordinary verification rejects it before action.\nFailed candidate: A’s broader preservation and interview plan — concrete consequence failed; the record shows no evidence that B’s narrower hold would be lost.\nFailed candidate: A’s more extensive A/C fact list — concrete consequence failed; both obtain the facts needed before conceding, and element B independently controls classification.\nFailed candidate: prospective-change wording — different conduct failed; both direct management away from continuing the current model.\nFailed candidate: A’s compensation-allocation inquiry — record support failed because all stated compensation is expressly covered.\nFailed candidate: A’s lost-credit sensitivity — likelihood failed because timely filing for every payment is established.\nFailed candidate: A’s element-C percentage assertion — different conduct failed because element B independently defeats contractor classification.\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"
    ]
  }
}