{
  "question": "q37",
  "model_1": "Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL",
  "model_2": "Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL",
  "answer_a_was": "Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL",
  "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": 11708,
    "completion_tokens": 1284,
    "total_tokens": 12992,
    "cost": 0.11169125,
    "is_byok": false,
    "prompt_tokens_details": {
      "cached_tokens": 0,
      "cache_write_tokens": 11705,
      "audio_tokens": 0,
      "video_tokens": 0
    },
    "cost_details": {
      "upstream_inference_cost": 0.11169125,
      "upstream_inference_prompt_cost": 0.07317125,
      "upstream_inference_completions_cost": 0.03852
    },
    "completion_tokens_details": {
      "reasoning_tokens": 938,
      "image_tokens": 0,
      "audio_tokens": 0
    }
  },
  "eval_prompt_sha256": "7e58b951cb86e4deba3b60fd01e9b9bd247ebe9883e1c9e43b24acffb1fd4667",
  "report": "TIE, FUNCTIONALLY EQUIVALENT.\n\nBasis. Both readers would immediately request the complete prior-discipline file, seek extension of the offer and a continuance or disclosure order, reject any all-charges admission, and condition settlement versus hearing strategy on whether a countable final order exists. Both would defend fraud as an unproven template error, contest negligent supervision and emergency suspension, use the junior engineer’s records, and present remediation without admitting fraud; no concrete difference in Dana’s position is demonstrated.\n\n[B] rejected: junior records are “business records and/or party admissions” — record lacks evidentiary rules supporting those classifications.\n[A] rejected: “criminal-level professional fraud” — record lacks any criminal-law characterization.\n[A/B] rejected: absence of causal harm independently defeats professional negligence — record lacks a rule making harm or causation an element of the charged violation.\n[A/B] rejected: proposed monetary and monitoring brackets are calibrated sanction values — record lacks sanction-valuation data.\n\nFailed candidate: B’s more detailed prior-file demand and exclusion procedure — different conduct failed because A also requests the prior file, continuance, and compelled disclosure before advising on sanctions.\nFailed candidate: B’s more nuanced treatment of the 64-report template history — concrete consequence failed because both contest fraud while recognizing negligence exposure.\nFailed candidate: B’s specific settlement brackets and hearing exhibits — record support failed because no supplied facts establish those terms would be accepted or change the outcome.\nFailed candidate: B’s additional complaint, cross-examination, and emergency-condition tactics — material magnitude failed because both readers already reach the same safe litigation posture.\n\nHard stop. The required 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"
    ]
  }
}