{
  "question": "q38",
  "model_1": "DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS",
  "model_2": "claude-opus-5",
  "answer_a_was": "claude-opus-5",
  "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": 8049,
    "completion_tokens": 1322,
    "total_tokens": 9371,
    "cost": 0.0899625,
    "is_byok": false,
    "prompt_tokens_details": {
      "cached_tokens": 0,
      "cache_write_tokens": 8046,
      "audio_tokens": 0,
      "video_tokens": 0
    },
    "cost_details": {
      "upstream_inference_cost": 0.0899625,
      "upstream_inference_prompt_cost": 0.0503025,
      "upstream_inference_completions_cost": 0.03966
    },
    "completion_tokens_details": {
      "reasoning_tokens": 1026,
      "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 a petition promptly within 30 days, seek an immediate stay before the $2.4 million commitment, and assert the same material procedural defects concerning notice, the post-comment model, significant comments, and good cause. Both pursue stay, vacatur or remand, and reopened comment without relying on the rule’s policy merits, placing Meridian on the same materially safe litigation path.\n\nFailed candidates. Monthly-reporting prejudice characterization — different conduct failed; both preserve the Rule 5 claim and seek relief from monthly reporting through the threshold and stay challenges.\nFailed candidates. Breadth of vacatur and temporary-continuation position — concrete consequence failed; the record does not establish that the differing remedial formulations would change Meridian’s obligations or the court’s disposition.\nFailed candidates. Answer A’s administrative-record demand — concrete consequence failed; no record-supported client outcome turns on expressly stating that routine litigation step.\nFailed candidates. Answer A’s proposed filing within 3–5 business days versus Answer B’s instruction to file immediately — material magnitude failed; both act well before the 25-day contract date and 30-day deadline.\nFailed candidates. Degree of certainty that the model supports the threshold — different conduct failed; both challenge the threshold independently for inadequate notice and invoke the model as an additional reopening ground.\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"
    ]
  }
}