{
  "question": "q35",
  "model_1": "Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL",
  "model_2": "Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL",
  "answer_a_was": "Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL",
  "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": 8509,
    "completion_tokens": 1486,
    "total_tokens": 9995,
    "cost": 0.0977575,
    "is_byok": false,
    "prompt_tokens_details": {
      "cached_tokens": 0,
      "cache_write_tokens": 8506,
      "audio_tokens": 0,
      "video_tokens": 0
    },
    "cost_details": {
      "upstream_inference_cost": 0.0977575,
      "upstream_inference_prompt_cost": 0.0531775,
      "upstream_inference_completions_cost": 0.04458
    },
    "completion_tokens_details": {
      "reasoning_tokens": 1034,
      "image_tokens": 0,
      "audio_tokens": 0
    }
  },
  "eval_prompt_sha256": "7e58b951cb86e4deba3b60fd01e9b9bd247ebe9883e1c9e43b24acffb1fd4667",
  "report": "TIE, FUNCTIONALLY EQUIVALENT.\n\nBasis. Both answers lead Priya to the same materially correct path: reject the unsupported nonwillful certification, immediately pursue truthful voluntary disclosure before the bank transfer, and arrange payment of the fixed $228,000 cost. After ordinary verification of Answer A’s inconsistent risk labels and invented 72-hour target, neither reader acts differently in a way that changes Priya’s financial, criminal-referral, eligibility, or liquidity position.\n\n[A] rejected: “file within 72 hours” — record lacks a 72-hour deadline.\n[A] rejected: 12.6% and 18% labeled as conditional criminal-referral risks — record supplies conditional risks of 18% and 30%, respectively.\n[A] rejected: waiting is “mathematically” cheaper than voluntary disclosure — internally inconsistent with its own $245,700 versus $228,000 calculations.\n[A] rejected: memorandum date of October 26, 2023 — record includes 2024 conduct and supplies no memorandum date.\n[B] rejected: document destruction “would create serious additional risk” — record lacks any document-preservation or destruction rule.\n\nFailed candidates. Answer A’s 72-hour target — different conduct failed because both answers require immediate filing before a potentially early transfer.\nFailed candidates. Answer A’s conditional-risk labels — different conduct failed because its calculations and recommendation still place Priya in voluntary disclosure.\nFailed candidates. Answer A’s statement that waiting is mathematically cheaper — different conduct failed because the stated figures and final recommendation show the opposite.\nFailed candidates. Answer A’s memorandum date — different conduct failed.\nFailed candidates. Answer B’s preservation instruction — concrete consequence failed because the record establishes neither contemplated destruction nor a governing consequence.\nFailed candidates. Answer B’s additional caution about professional fees — concrete consequence failed because no fee amount or resulting funding shortfall is supplied.\nFailed candidates. Answer A’s stronger immunity and willfulness phrasing — different conduct failed because both answers limit the protection to disclosed conduct and reject the nonwillful procedure.\n\nHard stop. The sentence cannot be completed with a concrete, record-supported consequence because both answers cause the reader to pursue the same timely, truthful $228,000 voluntary disclosure.",
  "judge_reasoning": "**Considering rejection points**\n\nI'm evaluating a few points regarding the rejection of some documents. For point [A], it was rejected on October 26, 2023, but it seems like there's a lack of memo date. The second [A] was also rejected due to not meeting a 72-hour threshold, which isn't well-supported. For [B], the risk of deletion was noted, but it doesn't really account for preservation rules. So, is that a real rejection? It seems like there's a lot to think about here!",
  "_public_record": {
    "type": "published record",
    "policy": "../../PUBLIC_RECORD_POLICY.md",
    "transformations": [
      "non-substantive machine metadata normalized",
      "published-record annotation added"
    ]
  }
}