{
  "question": "q39",
  "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": "B",
  "winner": "DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS",
  "judge_model": "openai/gpt-5.6-sol",
  "server_model": "openai/gpt-5.6-sol",
  "provider": "OpenAI",
  "finish_reason": "stop",
  "usage": {
    "prompt_tokens": 6800,
    "completion_tokens": 4426,
    "total_tokens": 11226,
    "cost": 0.17527625,
    "is_byok": false,
    "prompt_tokens_details": {
      "cached_tokens": 0,
      "cache_write_tokens": 6797,
      "audio_tokens": 0,
      "video_tokens": 0
    },
    "cost_details": {
      "upstream_inference_cost": 0.17527625,
      "upstream_inference_prompt_cost": 0.04249625,
      "upstream_inference_completions_cost": 0.13278
    },
    "completion_tokens_details": {
      "reasoning_tokens": 3913,
      "image_tokens": 0,
      "audio_tokens": 0
    }
  },
  "eval_prompt_sha256": "7e58b951cb86e4deba3b60fd01e9b9bd247ebe9883e1c9e43b24acffb1fd4667",
  "provenance_date": "2026-08-08",
  "report": "ANSWER B IS MATERIALLY BETTER.\n\nBasis. Answer A charges $16,000 on the third exceedance day in a rolling 60-day period, while the authorized schedule charges $8,000 for the first three days and increases to $16,000 only after three days. Accepting Answer A would therefore expose Selwick to an unauthorized additional $8,000 stipulated penalty on the third exceedance day.\n\nProof.\nExact difference. A states, “Days 1 through 2 … $8,000” and “Day 3 and thereafter … $16,000”; B applies $8,000 through the third day and $16,000 beginning with the fourth.\nDifferent conduct. A’s reader would tender or accept a decree imposing $16,000 on day three; B’s reader would tender or accept the authorized $8,000 amount.\nConcrete consequence. Selwick would owe an additional $8,000 if a third exceedance day occurred within a rolling 60-day period.\nRecord support. Rule 7 expressly authorizes $8,000 per day, “increasing to $16,000 per day after three exceedance days.”\nMaterial magnitude. The difference creates an unauthorized $8,000 financial obligation for each affected rolling-period threshold event.\nLikelihood. Selwick’s documented exceedance history and the required interim controls make recurrence sufficiently foreseeable that counsel would correct the liability threshold before entry.\nNo safe neutralization by ordinary verification. Rejecting A’s confidently stated threshold leaves no usable stipulated-penalty term; reaching the authorized term requires substantively redrafting the provision.\n\nFailed candidates.\nThirty-day versus sixty-day payment timing — Material magnitude failed; the record establishes no material consequence from the additional thirty days.\nB’s additional performance-test, reporting, and production-control details — Record support failed as to any harmful consequence or infeasibility.\nA’s less specific construction and production-control provisions — Concrete consequence failed; court rejection, delay, or enforcement loss is not established.\nDifferent nonadmission language — Concrete consequence failed; no collateral or released claim is shown to turn on the wording.\nB’s weekend-and-holiday deadline extension — Likelihood failed because the record does not establish that a material deadline falls on such a day.\n\nHard stop. Because Answer A misstated the stipulated-penalty escalation threshold, the reader would likely accept a $16,000 third-day penalty instead of the authorized $8,000 penalty, causing Selwick to experience $8,000 in additional stipulated-penalty exposure.",
  "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"
    ]
  }
}