{
  "question": "q38",
  "model_1": "DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS",
  "model_2": "Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL",
  "answer_a_was": "Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL",
  "answer_b_was": "DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS",
  "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": 6542,
    "completion_tokens": 1907,
    "total_tokens": 8449,
    "cost": 0.09809375,
    "is_byok": false,
    "prompt_tokens_details": {
      "cached_tokens": 0,
      "cache_write_tokens": 6539,
      "audio_tokens": 0,
      "video_tokens": 0
    },
    "cost_details": {
      "upstream_inference_cost": 0.09809375,
      "upstream_inference_prompt_cost": 0.04088375,
      "upstream_inference_completions_cost": 0.05721
    },
    "completion_tokens_details": {
      "reasoning_tokens": 1552,
      "image_tokens": 0,
      "audio_tokens": 0
    }
  },
  "eval_prompt_sha256": "7e58b951cb86e4deba3b60fd01e9b9bd247ebe9883e1c9e43b24acffb1fd4667",
  "provenance_date": "2026-08-08",
  "report": "TIE, FUNCTIONALLY EQUIVALENT.\n\nBasis. Both answers direct Meridian to file promptly within the 30-day deadline, seek a stay before the 25-day contract deadline, challenge the threshold and supply-chain requirements, attack reliance on the undisclosed model, raise the inadequate comment response and defective good-cause finding, oppose harmless error, and seek vacatur or remand. Their disagreement over whether monthly reporting itself was a logical outgrowth changes claim emphasis but does not establish a different material outcome given the same requested relief and independent procedural grounds.\n\n[A] rejected: “prevent financial ruin” — record establishes a $2.4 million contract obligation, not insolvency or ruin.\n[A] rejected: “$2.4 million immediate contract requirement” was “necessitated by a reporting cadence shift” — record does not allocate that cost specifically to monthly reporting.\n[A] rejected: “retroactively captured” — record describes immediate prospective effectiveness, not retroactive application.\n\nFailed candidate: Monthly reporting logical-outgrowth and prejudice analysis — concrete consequence failed; both readers still file the same challenge and seek the same immediate relief.\nFailed candidate: Treating the post-comment model as a basis for the threshold as well as supply-chain reporting — concrete consequence failed.\nFailed candidate: Vacatur, remand, and temporary-continuation framing — different conduct failed; both seek stay and vacatur while opposing continued compliance burdens.\nFailed candidate: Filing “within 24 hours” versus filing “immediately” before the statutory and contract deadlines — different conduct failed.\nFailed candidate: Characterizing the contract obligation as financial ruin — different conduct failed after ordinary verification rejects the unsupported characterization.\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"
    ],
    "retained": [
      "substantive report",
      "verdict code",
      "winner mapping",
      "A/B assignment",
      "model and judge identifiers",
      "finish reason",
      "token counts",
      "provenance date"
    ]
  }
}