{
  "question": "q36",
  "model_1": "DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS",
  "model_2": "claude-opus-5",
  "answer_a_was": "DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS",
  "answer_b_was": "claude-opus-5",
  "verdict_code": "A",
  "winner": "DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS",
  "judge_model": "openai/gpt-5.6-sol",
  "server_model": "openai/gpt-5.6-sol",
  "provider": "OpenAI",
  "finish_reason": "stop",
  "usage": {
    "prompt_tokens": 15075,
    "completion_tokens": 3778,
    "total_tokens": 18853,
    "cost": 0.207555,
    "is_byok": false,
    "prompt_tokens_details": {
      "cached_tokens": 0,
      "cache_write_tokens": 15072,
      "audio_tokens": 0,
      "video_tokens": 0
    },
    "cost_details": {
      "upstream_inference_cost": 0.207555,
      "upstream_inference_prompt_cost": 0.094215,
      "upstream_inference_completions_cost": 0.11334
    },
    "completion_tokens_details": {
      "reasoning_tokens": 3087,
      "image_tokens": 0,
      "audio_tokens": 0
    }
  },
  "eval_prompt_sha256": "7e58b951cb86e4deba3b60fd01e9b9bd247ebe9883e1c9e43b24acffb1fd4667",
  "provenance_date": "2026-08-08",
  "report": "ANSWER A IS MATERIALLY BETTER.\n\nBasis. Answer B affirmatively commits Oriole to producing all factual data generated under Emberline’s counsel-directed post-event engagement, although the governing rule protects material prepared primarily because of anticipated litigation or enforcement. Answer A instead preserves that work product, while producing ordinary-course engineering material and segregable nonprivileged data. B’s approach would disclose protected investigative material to the agency without support from the offered inadvertent-production clawback.\n\nExact difference. B promises to produce “all factual data generated under the Track 2 engagement”; A withholds materials prepared under counsel’s litigation-risk engagement while producing segregable ordinary engineering data where feasible.\nDifferent conduct. A’s reader reviews counsel-directed Emberline materials for work product and withholds and logs protected items; B’s reader deliberately produces counsel-directed measurements, test outputs, and imagery.\nConcrete consequence. Oriole discloses protected enforcement and litigation work product to the investigating agency, exposing counsel-directed testing and degrading Oriole’s evidentiary position.\nRecord support. Rule 5 protects material prepared primarily because of anticipated litigation or enforcement, and the facts state that counsel separately retained Emberline to analyze those risks.\nMaterial magnitude. Disclosure gives the investigating agency access to protected post-event investigative material bearing on causation and exposure.\nLikelihood. B expressly schedules production of all Track 2 factual data, so the disclosure is an immediate production commitment rather than a hypothetical possibility.\nNo safe neutralization by ordinary verification. Correcting B requires re-reviewing and rebuilding the Track 2 production set document by document; the offered clawback does not excuse deliberate overproduction.\n\n[B] rejected: named incidents, dates, subpoena number, vehicle models, components, systems, custodians, DTC codes, and claimant-demand details — record lacks those facts.\n[B] rejected: Osprey and Harrier share battery architecture while Kite and Merlin differ — record states the four vehicle lines use different battery systems.\n[B] rejected: forty-two resellers, completed canvasses, issued holds, preservation notices, and specific historical actions — record lacks those facts.\n[A] rejected: preservation requests have already been sent to regional resellers — record lacks that fact.\n[A] rejected: Request 1 reaches four “other” vehicle lines — record states that the request reaches four vehicle lines total.\n\nFailed candidate: B’s unsupported factual narrative and fixed calendar schedule — concrete consequence failed because ordinary verification would reject those assertions before filing, and the record does not establish a missed deadline.\nFailed candidate: B’s Harrier production commitment — likelihood failed because the asserted shared architecture directly contradicts the record and would be rejected before action.\nFailed candidate: B’s prospective-production protocol versus A’s through-2026 response — concrete consequence failed because neither answer is shown to cause a missed supplementation obligation.\nFailed candidate: Differences in search dates, sampling, custodians, metadata, logging fields, and production detail — different conduct with a concrete client consequence failed.\nFailed candidate: A’s inaccurate vehicle-line count and unsupported reseller-preservation statement — no safe neutralization failed because both are removed through ordinary record checking without reconstructing the response.\n\nHard stop. Because Answer B committed Oriole to producing all factual material generated under Emberline’s counsel-directed post-event engagement, the reader would likely produce protected test outputs instead of withholding and logging work product, causing Oriole to disclose protected litigation and enforcement material to the investigating agency.",
  "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"
    ]
  }
}