{
  "question": "q35",
  "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": 6178,
    "completion_tokens": 1446,
    "total_tokens": 7624,
    "cost": 0.08198875,
    "is_byok": false,
    "prompt_tokens_details": {
      "cached_tokens": 0,
      "cache_write_tokens": 6175,
      "audio_tokens": 0,
      "video_tokens": 0
    },
    "cost_details": {
      "upstream_inference_cost": 0.08198875,
      "upstream_inference_prompt_cost": 0.03860875,
      "upstream_inference_completions_cost": 0.04338
    },
    "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 Priya on the same materially correct path: immediately make a truthful voluntary disclosure, pay $228,000, reject the unsupported nonwillful certification, and avoid quiet filing or waiting. Answer A’s discrepancies are readily rejected from the supplied rules or its own calculations and do not demonstrate materially different conduct or consequences.\n\n[A] rejected: “DATE: October 26, 2023” — record contradicts this with omitted 2024 income.\n[A] rejected: voluntary disclosure “guarantees immunity from criminal prosecution” — cited authority provides no criminal referral for disclosed conduct, not immunity.\n[A] rejected: waiting has a lower expected monetary cost — internally inconsistent with its $245,700 no-action cost versus $228,000 voluntary-disclosure cost.\n[A] rejected: table labels 12.6% and 18% as conditional referral risks — record states conditional risks of 18% and 30%; 12.6% and 18% are overall implied risks.\n[A] rejected: “File within 72 hours” — record lacks support for a 72-hour safe period.\n\nFailed candidates. Unsupported 72-hour instruction — likelihood failed because Answer A repeatedly directs immediate filing and does not advise waiting.\nFailed candidates. Immunity terminology — concrete consequence failed because both answers correctly advise that compliant disclosure results in no referral for the disclosed conduct.\nFailed candidates. No-action cost contradiction — no safe neutralization failed because Answer A’s displayed figures and recommendation directly expose and correct the stray statement.\nFailed candidates. Conditional-risk table label — no safe neutralization failed because Answer A separately states the supplied conditional rates and shows the multiplication producing overall rates.\nFailed candidates. Answer B’s clarification that no collection is not forgiveness — different conduct failed because both reject no action and describe the calculation as limited to the two-year window.\nFailed candidates. Incorrect memorandum date — 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"
    ]
  }
}