{
  "question": "q37",
  "model_1": "DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS",
  "model_2": "Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL",
  "answer_a_was": "DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS",
  "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": 12139,
    "completion_tokens": 1954,
    "total_tokens": 14093,
    "cost": 0.134485,
    "is_byok": false,
    "prompt_tokens_details": {
      "cached_tokens": 0,
      "cache_write_tokens": 12136,
      "audio_tokens": 0,
      "video_tokens": 0
    },
    "cost_details": {
      "upstream_inference_cost": 0.134485,
      "upstream_inference_prompt_cost": 0.075865,
      "upstream_inference_completions_cost": 0.05862
    },
    "completion_tokens_details": {
      "reasoning_tokens": 1552,
      "image_tokens": 0,
      "audio_tokens": 0
    }
  },
  "eval_prompt_sha256": "7e58b951cb86e4deba3b60fd01e9b9bd247ebe9883e1c9e43b24acffb1fd4667",
  "report": "TIE, FUNCTIONALLY EQUIVALENT.\n\nBasis. Both answers direct counsel to obtain the complete prior-discipline file, seek an offer extension and disclosure relief, reject any immediate fraud admission, pursue a no-fraud negotiated resolution, and condition the hearing-versus-settlement decision on whether the prior matter is countable discipline. Their differing fallback positions and proposed settlement terms do not establish a record-supported difference in Dana’s ultimate sanction or other material position.\n\n[A] rejected: “accepting the offer may be a reasonable business decision…to avoid a likely suspension” — record says qualifying discipline may raise the sanction to suspension but lacks facts establishing that suspension is likely.\n[B] rejected: proposed $2,500–$5,000 and $8,000–$12,000 settlement ranges — record lacks sanction-valuation benchmarks.\n[B] rejected: “There is no prior warning or Board notice that this footer was false” — record lacks the prior-file contents.\n[B] rejected: junior records are “likely admissible…as business records and/or party admissions” — record lacks those evidentiary rules and authentication facts.\nFailed candidates. Accept-all-charges fallback versus proceeding to hearing — concrete consequence failed; the record does not establish which course produces the less harmful sanction or collateral consequence.\nFailed candidates. Specific counteroffer amounts and monitoring periods — concrete consequence failed; no supported settlement response or sanction outcome follows from those figures.\nFailed candidates. B’s additional materiality argument — concrete consequence failed; both readers contest fraud and no different adjudicative result is demonstrated.\nFailed candidates. B’s additional exclusion, certification, and emergency-condition requests — concrete consequence failed; the record does not show that these steps preserve an interest otherwise lost.\nFailed candidates. Evidentiary characterization of the junior’s records — different conduct failed; both readers use the records and witness to rebut the complaint and prove active supervision.\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"
    ]
  }
}