{
  "question": "q38",
  "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": 9116,
    "completion_tokens": 1888,
    "total_tokens": 11004,
    "cost": 0.11361125,
    "is_byok": false,
    "prompt_tokens_details": {
      "cached_tokens": 0,
      "cache_write_tokens": 9113,
      "audio_tokens": 0,
      "video_tokens": 0
    },
    "cost_details": {
      "upstream_inference_cost": 0.11361125,
      "upstream_inference_prompt_cost": 0.05697125,
      "upstream_inference_completions_cost": 0.05664
    },
    "completion_tokens_details": {
      "reasoning_tokens": 1552,
      "image_tokens": 0,
      "audio_tokens": 0
    }
  },
  "eval_prompt_sha256": "7e58b951cb86e4deba3b60fd01e9b9bd247ebe9883e1c9e43b24acffb1fd4667",
  "report": "TIE, FUNCTIONALLY EQUIVALENT.\n\nBasis. Both answers direct Meridian to file immediately, seek an expedited stay before the $2.4 million commitment, and pursue vacatur or remand based on inadequate notice, the unnotified supplier/contractor requirements, the undisclosed model, inadequate comment response, and invalid good cause. Their differing characterization of monthly reporting does not change the material litigation path because both challenge that provision through the agency’s inadequate response and immediate-effectiveness defect.\n\n[A] rejected: the $2.4 million contract would cause “financial ruin” — record establishes the expenditure but not Meridian’s financial condition.\n[A] rejected: the threshold “retroactively captured” Meridian — record establishes immediate prospective coverage, not retroactivity.\n[B] rejected: the Directorate materially relied on the model to adopt the 25,000-ton threshold — record expressly identifies that reliance only for supplier and contractor reporting.\n\nFailed candidate: Monthly reporting as a logical outgrowth — concrete consequence failed; both readers still challenge monthly reporting and seek the same immediate relief on independent procedural grounds.\nFailed candidate: Extending the post-comment-model claim to the threshold — record support failed; actual reliance for that requirement is not established.\nFailed candidate: Scope and framing of stay, vacatur, and remand requests — different conduct failed; both readers seek expedited stay and vacatur or remand before Meridian incurs the contract cost.\nFailed candidate: Answer B’s more precise harmless-error treatment of monthly reporting — concrete consequence failed; both establish possible prejudice and preserve the stronger nonharmless defects.\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"
    ]
  }
}