{
  "question": "q37",
  "model_1": "Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL",
  "model_2": "claude-opus-5",
  "answer_a_was": "Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL",
  "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": 8121,
    "completion_tokens": 2338,
    "total_tokens": 10459,
    "cost": 0.1208925,
    "is_byok": false,
    "prompt_tokens_details": {
      "cached_tokens": 0,
      "cache_write_tokens": 8118,
      "audio_tokens": 0,
      "video_tokens": 0
    },
    "cost_details": {
      "upstream_inference_cost": 0.1208925,
      "upstream_inference_prompt_cost": 0.0507525,
      "upstream_inference_completions_cost": 0.07014
    },
    "completion_tokens_details": {
      "reasoning_tokens": 1919,
      "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 reject the current fraud-admission offer, immediately obtain the complete prior-discipline file, seek disclosure and a continuance or offer extension, and pursue a non-fraud resolution conditioned on whether a qualifying final order exists. Both also preserve the same hearing defenses: lack of proven scienter, documented remote supervision, weak anonymous hearsay, absence of imminent danger, and mitigation through corrected controls.\n\n[A] rejected: the later unrelated crack “negates the element of harm caused by negligence” — governing rules do not make resulting harm an element of negligent supervision.\n[B] rejected: the anonymous allegation is affirmatively “disproved” — record contains contradictory evidence but does not conclusively establish falsity.\n[B] rejected: 63 additional false-certification counts and specified collateral consequences — record lacks charging and collateral-consequence rules supporting those assertions.\n[B] rejected: a public reprimand is the realistic worst case without prior discipline — record supplies no binding sanction range beyond available outcomes.\n\nFailed candidate: B’s independent-expert recommendation — concrete consequence failed because the record does not establish what the expert would conclude or that the conclusion would alter the outcome.\nFailed candidate: B’s metadata investigation and litigation hold — concrete consequence failed because no favorable or adverse metadata is established.\nFailed candidate: B’s proposed global release — likelihood failed because the record does not show that additional reports will generate charges.\nFailed candidate: B’s witness-conflict, subpoena, and separate-counsel measures — record support failed because no adversity, coercion, or cooperation problem is shown.\nFailed candidate: B’s more detailed prior-file demand — different conduct failed because A already requests the prior-discipline file and related Board records needed to determine finality and vacatur.\nFailed candidate: B’s more specific counteroffer terms — concrete consequence failed because the record does not establish which terms the Board would accept or that they produce a better outcome.\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"
    ]
  }
}