{
  "question": "q37",
  "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": "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": 8552,
    "completion_tokens": 2869,
    "total_tokens": 11421,
    "cost": 0.13951625,
    "is_byok": false,
    "prompt_tokens_details": {
      "cached_tokens": 0,
      "cache_write_tokens": 8549,
      "audio_tokens": 0,
      "video_tokens": 0
    },
    "cost_details": {
      "upstream_inference_cost": 0.13951625,
      "upstream_inference_prompt_cost": 0.05344625,
      "upstream_inference_completions_cost": 0.08607
    },
    "completion_tokens_details": {
      "reasoning_tokens": 2397,
      "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 not to accept the current offer before immediately obtaining the complete prior-discipline file, seeking an extension or continuance, and countering with a non-fraud resolution. Both condition final settlement-versus-hearing advice on whether the prior matter is countable discipline; the additional investigative and litigation steps in Answer B do not establish a concrete different client outcome on the supplied record.\n\n[B] rejected: 63 additional false-certification counts requiring a global release — record does not establish Dana signed those reports or was absent from those inspections.\n[B] rejected: reciprocal discipline, insurance exclusions, debarment, expert disqualification, and civil or criminal exposure — record lacks governing rules establishing those consequences.\n[B] rejected: “realistic worst case” of a public reprimand and “revocation-range exposure” — record lacks a sanction schedule supporting either prediction.\n[B] rejected: an expired offer is “almost always renewable” — record lacks evidence of Board settlement practice.\n[B] rejected: categorical exclusion of the anonymous complaint as substantive evidence — cited Rule 5 permits reliable hearsay to supplement other evidence and bars only sole reliance on an uncorroborated anonymous complaint.\n\nFailed candidates. Retaining a structural expert: concrete consequence failed because the record does not establish what the applicable technical standard or expert opinion would be.\nFailed candidates. Template metadata and litigation hold: concrete consequence failed because the record does not establish what the metadata would show.\nFailed candidates. Accepting the offer versus proceeding to hearing if the prior file contains countable discipline: concrete consequence failed because the record does not establish which course produces the safer sanction outcome.\nFailed candidates. Global release for prior template reports: record support failed because the reports’ signers and onsite circumstances are unknown.\nFailed candidates. Separate counsel and subpoena for the junior engineer: record support failed because no actual conflict, coercion, or cooperation problem is supplied.\nFailed candidates. Different proposed settlement terms: likelihood failed because the record does not show the Board would accept either counterproposal.\nFailed candidates. Motion concerning the anonymous complaint: concrete consequence failed because both answers rely on the corroborated junior-engineer evidence and no charge need rest solely on the complaint.\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"
    ]
  }
}