{
  "question": "q37",
  "model_1": "DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS",
  "model_2": "Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL",
  "answer_a_was": "Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL",
  "answer_b_was": "DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS",
  "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": 7160,
    "completion_tokens": 1601,
    "total_tokens": 8761,
    "cost": 0.09277625,
    "is_byok": false,
    "prompt_tokens_details": {
      "cached_tokens": 0,
      "cache_write_tokens": 7157,
      "audio_tokens": 0,
      "video_tokens": 0
    },
    "cost_details": {
      "upstream_inference_cost": 0.09277625,
      "upstream_inference_prompt_cost": 0.04474625,
      "upstream_inference_completions_cost": 0.04803
    },
    "completion_tokens_details": {
      "reasoning_tokens": 1251,
      "image_tokens": 0,
      "audio_tokens": 0
    }
  },
  "eval_prompt_sha256": "7e58b951cb86e4deba3b60fd01e9b9bd247ebe9883e1c9e43b24acffb1fd4667",
  "provenance_date": "2026-08-08",
  "report": "TIE, FUNCTIONALLY EQUIVALENT.\n\nBasis. Both answers direct counsel to obtain the prior-discipline file immediately, seek an offer extension and continuance or disclosure relief, reject any present fraud admission, and counter with a negligence-based resolution preserving denial of fraud. Both condition final settlement-versus-hearing advice on whether the prior matter is countable discipline and place Dana on the same materially safe path regarding the charges, evidence, mitigation, and emergency suspension.\n\n[A] rejected: “subsequent failure” — record states only that another crack grew and the bridge was closed for repair.\n[A] rejected: “criminal-level professional fraud” — governing law describes administrative professional discipline, not a criminal charge.\n[B] rejected: “likely suspension” based on a countable prior order — Rule 7 says such an order may raise the sanction to suspension, and the record lacks the prior file needed to determine likelihood.\n\nFailed candidates. B’s more detailed list of prior-file components — Different conduct failed because A also directs counsel to request the prior-discipline file and aggravation materials immediately.\nFailed candidates. Different advice if the prior file contains countable discipline — Concrete consequence failed because the unknown file and negotiation response do not establish whether accepting the offer or proceeding would leave Dana better off.\nFailed candidates. B’s additional caution about the crack-measurement discrepancy — Different conduct failed because both answers recommend defending supervision and the closure decision while recognizing possible negligence exposure.\nFailed candidates. Different proposed counteroffer terms — Concrete consequence failed because both seek a no-fraud resolution and the record does not establish which proposed terms the Board would accept.\n\nHard stop. The sentence cannot be completed with a concrete, record-supported consequence distinguishing the answers.",
  "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"
    ]
  }
}