{
  "question": "q38",
  "model_1": "Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL",
  "model_2": "claude-opus-5",
  "answer_a_was": "claude-opus-5",
  "answer_b_was": "Qwen3.5-27B-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": 7996,
    "completion_tokens": 2412,
    "total_tokens": 10408,
    "cost": 0.12233125,
    "is_byok": false,
    "prompt_tokens_details": {
      "cached_tokens": 0,
      "cache_write_tokens": 7993,
      "audio_tokens": 0,
      "video_tokens": 0
    },
    "cost_details": {
      "upstream_inference_cost": 0.12233125,
      "upstream_inference_prompt_cost": 0.04997125,
      "upstream_inference_completions_cost": 0.07236
    },
    "completion_tokens_details": {
      "reasoning_tokens": 2034,
      "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 timely procedural petition with an emergency stay request before the 25-day contract deadline, challenging the threshold change, supply-chain requirements, undisclosed model, unanswered instrumentation comment, and good-cause finding. Their differences do not demonstrably alter Meridian’s protection from imminent compliance costs or the materially available vacatur and remand remedies.\n\n[A] rejected: the model was the sole essential factual basis for the 25,000-ton threshold — record expressly identifies it only as the reason for supplier and contractor reporting.\n[B] rejected: the $2.4 million contract threatens “financial ruin” — record establishes the expenditure but not Meridian’s financial condition.\n[B] rejected: temporary continuation would violate Rule 7 — Rule 8 expressly permits temporary continuation when disruption would be serious.\n[B] rejected: monthly reporting rested on post-comment justifications — record does not identify when the data-quality rationale arose.\n\nFailed candidates. A’s additional Rule 4 theory against the threshold — concrete consequence failed because both answers independently challenge and seek vacatur of that threshold.\nFailed candidates. Different characterization of monthly reporting as a logical outgrowth — different conduct failed because both ultimately rely on the threshold defect and Rule 5 response failure.\nFailed candidates. Partial versus full vacatur — concrete consequence failed because both remedies would remove Meridian’s obligations, while broader effects on others do not alter this client’s position.\nFailed candidates. Filing within 24 hours versus 3–5 business days — concrete consequence failed because both preserve the 30-day petition deadline and permit stay consideration before the contract deadline.\nFailed candidates. A’s administrative-record demand — concrete consequence failed because no record-supported evidentiary or remedial loss follows from B’s omission.\n\nHard stop. It 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"
    ]
  }
}