{
  "question": "q40",
  "model_1": "DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS",
  "model_2": "Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL",
  "answer_a_was": "DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS",
  "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": 6649,
    "completion_tokens": 2450,
    "total_tokens": 9099,
    "cost": 0.1150525,
    "is_byok": false,
    "prompt_tokens_details": {
      "cached_tokens": 0,
      "cache_write_tokens": 6646,
      "audio_tokens": 0,
      "video_tokens": 0
    },
    "cost_details": {
      "upstream_inference_cost": 0.1150525,
      "upstream_inference_prompt_cost": 0.0415525,
      "upstream_inference_completions_cost": 0.0735
    },
    "completion_tokens_details": {
      "reasoning_tokens": 2070,
      "image_tokens": 0,
      "audio_tokens": 0
    }
  },
  "eval_prompt_sha256": "7e58b951cb86e4deba3b60fd01e9b9bd247ebe9883e1c9e43b24acffb1fd4667",
  "provenance_date": "2026-08-08",
  "report": "TIE, FUNCTIONALLY EQUIVALENT.\n\nBasis. Both answers direct Brindle to complete Phase II before closing, reject the $500,000 escrow and final-judgment condition, require a current Rule 7 escrow of $2,118,000 with direct-payment and adequate-survival terms, and recognize that contractual structuring cannot eliminate current-owner liability. No demonstrated difference establishes that Brindle would close, negotiate, or bear contamination costs materially differently.\n\n[B] rejected: closing without Phase II “voids” the innocent-purchaser defense — cited Rule 5 says it may defeat protection.\n[B] rejected: $500,000 covers approximately 62% of the low-end cost plus contingency — arithmetic yields approximately 52%.\n[B] rejected: Harthill’s refusal confirms knowledge of the risk — record lacks evidence of Harthill’s knowledge.\n[B] rejected: a 14-day extension is needed to accommodate testing — record says results arrive in nine days with closing in twelve.\n[B] rejected: groundwater results support negotiating the “escrow down” — internally inconsistent with its conclusion that $2,118,000 is inadequate for the groundwater scenario.\n\nFailed candidate: A supplies branch-specific escrow figures while B does not — different conduct not proven because both condition final approval and escrow adequacy on Phase II results.\nFailed candidate: B recommends an immediate scheduling extension while A would preserve the scheduled closing if results arrive — concrete consequence not established.\nFailed candidate: differing successor-risk characterizations and restructuring suggestions — concrete consequence not established.\nFailed candidate: differing land-use and survival drafting detail — record support for a different client outcome is absent.\nFailed candidate: B’s stronger innocent-purchaser language and unsupported calculations — no safe neutralization failed; the points are rejected through ordinary verification.\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"
    ]
  }
}