{
  "question": "q36",
  "model_1": "Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL",
  "model_2": "Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL",
  "answer_a_was": "Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL",
  "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": 13323,
    "completion_tokens": 4025,
    "total_tokens": 17348,
    "cost": 0.204015,
    "is_byok": false,
    "prompt_tokens_details": {
      "cached_tokens": 0,
      "cache_write_tokens": 13320,
      "audio_tokens": 0,
      "video_tokens": 0
    },
    "cost_details": {
      "upstream_inference_cost": 0.204015,
      "upstream_inference_prompt_cost": 0.083265,
      "upstream_inference_completions_cost": 0.12075
    },
    "completion_tokens_details": {
      "reasoning_tokens": 3576,
      "image_tokens": 0,
      "audio_tokens": 0
    }
  },
  "eval_prompt_sha256": "7e58b951cb86e4deba3b60fd01e9b9bd247ebe9883e1c9e43b24acffb1fd4667",
  "report": "TIE, FUNCTIONALLY EQUIVALENT.\n\nBasis. Both answers place Oriole on the same material path: preserve responsive sources, produce available nonprivileged material, investigate reseller control, narrow the 18-million-message search, segregate privileged material, log withholding, and use a reasonable-review clawback protocol. After ordinary verification rejects Answer B’s unsupported dates and production conditions, no remaining difference is shown to alter Oriole’s legal, evidentiary, financial, or operational position.\n\n[B] rejected: October 2023 dates, subpoena number, addresses, and November 9 concurrence deadline — record lacks these facts.\n[B] rejected: conditioning available productions on agency agreement or written confirmation — cited governing Rule 3 requires production of reasonably available nonprivileged material notwithstanding objections.\n[B] rejected: July 2020 as the start of Osprey development — record lacks that date.\n[B] rejected: existence of a specific Emberline confidential-engagement report — record establishes an engagement but not a completed report.\n\nFailed candidate: Answer A’s more detailed search terms and sampling protocol — concrete consequence failed; the record does not show that Answer B’s proposed search would miss responsive evidence.\nFailed candidate: Answer B’s narrower Request 3 proposal — record support failed; no responsive nonprivileged communications outside that scope are established.\nFailed candidate: Answer B’s failure to define “substantially similar” Osprey events — concrete consequence failed; the record does not establish any such additional event or resulting omission.\nFailed candidate: Different privilege-log timing — no safe neutralization failed; the governing deadline and Rule 6 resolve the timing after unsupported conditions are rejected.\nFailed candidate: Different treatment of non-Osprey complaints and pre-2022 materials — record support failed; no relevant shared-system complaint or omitted document is established.\nFailed candidate: Answer B’s less detailed reseller-preservation language — likelihood failed; no foreseeable loss or deletion of reseller data is established.\nFailed candidate: Answer B’s characterization of Emberline litigation-risk work as protected — different conduct failed; both answers withhold and log qualifying work product while producing ordinary engineering material.\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"
    ]
  }
}