{
  "question": "q37",
  "model_1": "Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL",
  "model_2": "claude-opus-5",
  "answer_a_was": "Qwen3.8-27B-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": 13100,
    "completion_tokens": 1177,
    "total_tokens": 14277,
    "cost": 0.11718125,
    "is_byok": false,
    "prompt_tokens_details": {
      "cached_tokens": 0,
      "cache_write_tokens": 13097,
      "audio_tokens": 0,
      "video_tokens": 0
    },
    "cost_details": {
      "upstream_inference_cost": 0.11718125,
      "upstream_inference_prompt_cost": 0.08187125,
      "upstream_inference_completions_cost": 0.03531
    },
    "completion_tokens_details": {
      "reasoning_tokens": 786,
      "image_tokens": 0,
      "audio_tokens": 0
    }
  },
  "eval_prompt_sha256": "7e58b951cb86e4deba3b60fd01e9b9bd247ebe9883e1c9e43b24acffb1fd4667",
  "report": "TIE, FUNCTIONALLY EQUIVALENT.\n\nBasis. Both readers would reject the current all-charges offer, immediately obtain the complete prior-discipline file, seek an extension and disclosure order or continuance, preserve the fraud denial, and condition settlement versus hearing on whether a qualifying final order exists. After ordinary verification rejects unsupported collateral predictions, both answers place Dana on the same materially safe procedural and settlement path.\n\n[B] rejected: 63 additional potential false-certification counts — record lacks facts showing Dana signed those reports without being onsite or that separate charges remain available.\n[B] rejected: reciprocal discipline, insurance exclusions, debarment, database reporting, and civil or criminal exposure — record lacks governing rules or facts establishing those consequences.\n[A] rejected: junior engineer’s records qualify as business records or party admissions — record lacks applicable admissibility rules and authentication facts.\n\nFailed candidates. Different proposed settlement amounts and monitoring periods — concrete consequence failed because the record does not establish which package the Board would accept or which produces a better outcome.\nFailed candidates. B’s global-release demand — record support failed because potential liability on the prior reports is not established.\nFailed candidates. B’s recommendation to consider stipulating a non-fraud count — likelihood failed because it is conditional and both answers otherwise preserve the same no-fraud settlement posture.\nFailed candidates. Timing and scope of expert retention and metadata review — different conduct failed because both answers direct counsel to develop the same technical and template evidence before hearing.\nFailed candidates. Different procedures concerning the anonymous complaint and junior engineer — concrete consequence failed because both answers prevent the complaint from independently supporting a violation and rely on the same rebuttal records.\nFailed candidates. Differences in requested prior-file contents and retrieval routes — material magnitude failed because both requests obtain the documents needed to determine finality, date, vacatur, and aggravating effect.\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"
    ]
  }
}