{
  "question": "q35",
  "model_1": "Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL",
  "model_2": "claude-opus-5",
  "answer_a_was": "claude-opus-5",
  "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": 9359,
    "completion_tokens": 1338,
    "total_tokens": 10697,
    "cost": 0.09863,
    "is_byok": false,
    "prompt_tokens_details": {
      "cached_tokens": 0,
      "cache_write_tokens": 9356,
      "audio_tokens": 0,
      "video_tokens": 0
    },
    "cost_details": {
      "upstream_inference_cost": 0.09863,
      "upstream_inference_prompt_cost": 0.05849,
      "upstream_inference_completions_cost": 0.04014
    },
    "completion_tokens_details": {
      "reasoning_tokens": 1023,
      "image_tokens": 0,
      "audio_tokens": 0
    }
  },
  "eval_prompt_sha256": "7e58b951cb86e4deba3b60fd01e9b9bd247ebe9883e1c9e43b24acffb1fd4667",
  "report": "TIE, FUNCTIONALLY EQUIVALENT.\n\nBasis. Both answers direct Priya to make an immediate, truthful voluntary disclosure at a fixed $228,000 cost, reject the unsupported nonwillful certification, and advise against quiet returns or waiting because of higher expected costs, referral exposure, and imminent loss of eligibility. Both leave a competent professional on the same materially correct and safe course with substantially identical liquidity planning.\n\n[A] rejected: false nonwillful certification “would likely be the worst decision available” — record lacks comparative outcome probabilities for that path.\n[A] rejected: moving, closing, or restructuring the account can compound the civil and criminal picture — record lacks a governing rule or supplied consequence for those acts.\n[A] rejected: deletion after notice would be more damaging than the email itself — record lacks a governing obstruction or evidence rule.\n[B] rejected: document destruction would create serious additional risk — record lacks a governing obstruction or evidence rule.\n\nFailed candidates. Immediate borrowing recommendation versus borrowing only if needed — concrete consequence failed because loan terms, costs, and resulting client harm are not supplied.\nFailed candidates. Answer A’s stronger characterization of the false-certification path — different conduct failed because both answers direct Priya not to use it.\nFailed candidates. Answer A’s additional instruction not to move or close the account — record support failed because no supplied rule establishes a consequence.\nFailed candidates. Differences in risk-tolerance rhetoric — different conduct failed because both recommend immediate voluntary disclosure.\n\nHard stop. It 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"
    ]
  }
}