{
  "question": "q36",
  "model_1": "Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL",
  "model_2": "claude-opus-5",
  "answer_a_was": "claude-opus-5",
  "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": 13895,
    "completion_tokens": 3158,
    "total_tokens": 17053,
    "cost": 0.18158,
    "is_byok": false,
    "prompt_tokens_details": {
      "cached_tokens": 0,
      "cache_write_tokens": 13892,
      "audio_tokens": 0,
      "video_tokens": 0
    },
    "cost_details": {
      "upstream_inference_cost": 0.18158,
      "upstream_inference_prompt_cost": 0.08684,
      "upstream_inference_completions_cost": 0.09474
    },
    "completion_tokens_details": {
      "reasoning_tokens": 2547,
      "image_tokens": 0,
      "audio_tokens": 0
    }
  },
  "eval_prompt_sha256": "7e58b951cb86e4deba3b60fd01e9b9bd247ebe9883e1c9e43b24acffb1fd4667",
  "provenance_date": "2026-08-08",
  "report": "TIE, FUNCTIONALLY EQUIVALENT.\n\nBasis. After ordinary verification, both answers put counsel on the same material path: preserve sources, investigate reseller control, promptly produce available nonprivileged material, narrow Requests 1–2 concretely, review Requests 3–4 document by document, separate Emberline’s ordinary work from counsel-directed work product, and use detailed privilege logs and a clawback protocol. Answer B’s conditions on production are facially inconsistent with Rule 3 and safely removed because it already identifies the material and production timing; Answer A’s unsupported factual particulars are likewise rejected before filing. No record-supported difference in client outcome remains.\n\n[A] rejected: invented incident identifiers, event dates, vehicle architecture, personnel, DTC codes, contract dates, claimant demand, and subpoena details — record lacks those facts.\n[A] rejected: categorical assertion that all factual measurements generated during Emberline’s counsel-directed engagement are unprotected — cited authority says work product protects material prepared primarily because of anticipated litigation or enforcement.\n[A] rejected: nonwaiver protection for production “whether inadvertent or not” — cited authority supports clawback for inadvertent production and excludes deliberate overproduction.\n[B] rejected: 2023 response date and subpoena details — record contradicts that chronology through the identified 2024 reports and later post-event engagement.\n[B] rejected: conditioning available Request 1 and Request 5 productions on agency agreement — cited authority says objections do not justify withholding reasonably available nonprivileged material.\n[B] rejected: narrowing Request 3 to the three events and later litigation risk — record lacks a burden or relevance basis for excluding other responsive Osprey battery-safety and compliance communications.\n\nFailed candidates. Immediate-production language: no-safe-neutralization element failed because Rule 3 and Answer B’s own collection commitments supply the corrected conduct without reconstructed analysis.\nFailed candidates. Request 1 scope and phasing: concrete-consequence element failed because both preserve and produce Osprey complaints while investigating reseller control.\nFailed candidates. Request 2 custodians, terms, sampling, and dates: concrete-consequence element failed because both initiate a five-custodian phased search subject to validation and refinement.\nFailed candidates. Requests 3–4 privilege treatment: different-conduct element failed because both produce facts and business material, redact only protected advice, and log withheld content.\nFailed candidates. Emberline treatment: different-conduct element failed after rejecting Answer A’s overbroad factual-work-product statement; both produce ordinary-course reports and review counsel-directed material for work product.\nFailed candidates. Privilege-log and clawback detail: material-magnitude element failed because both require document-level fields, mixed-document redaction, separate attachment treatment, timely logs, reasonable review, and return or destruction of inadvertently produced material.\nFailed candidates. Unsupported captions, dates, names, and technical particulars: no-safe-neutralization element failed because ordinary pre-filing verification rejects them before action.\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"
    ]
  }
}