{
  "question": "q40",
  "model_1": "DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS",
  "model_2": "Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL",
  "answer_a_was": "Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL",
  "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": 11004,
    "completion_tokens": 1609,
    "total_tokens": 12613,
    "cost": 0.11704125,
    "is_byok": false,
    "prompt_tokens_details": {
      "cached_tokens": 0,
      "cache_write_tokens": 11001,
      "audio_tokens": 0,
      "video_tokens": 0
    },
    "cost_details": {
      "upstream_inference_cost": 0.11704125,
      "upstream_inference_prompt_cost": 0.06877125,
      "upstream_inference_completions_cost": 0.04827
    },
    "completion_tokens_details": {
      "reasoning_tokens": 1224,
      "image_tokens": 0,
      "audio_tokens": 0
    }
  },
  "eval_prompt_sha256": "7e58b951cb86e4deba3b60fd01e9b9bd247ebe9883e1c9e43b24acffb1fd4667",
  "report": "TIE, FUNCTIONALLY EQUIVALENT.\n\nBasis. Both answers direct Brindle to complete and review Phase II testing before closing, require the Rule 7 escrow of $2,118,000 or the applicable confirmed-branch amount, eliminate the final-judgment draw condition, strengthen environmental protections, and refuse to close if Harthill will not provide adequate security. Their differences do not establish a materially different client outcome on the supplied record.\n\n[A] rejected: Harthill should pay the $48,000 testing cost “or [be] credited” for it — internally inconsistent with the proposed allocation to Harthill.\n[B] rejected: current-owner liability is “direct, nondelegable” and Brindle “will be directly liable” — cited Rule 3 says a current owner may be directly liable.\n\nFailed candidates. A’s recommended 14-to-21-day extension versus B’s potentially on-schedule conditional closing — Concrete consequence failed; the record establishes no harm from a short delay or from closing on day twelve after timely results and satisfaction of all conditions.\nFailed candidates. A’s lease, split-closing, and parcel-SPE options versus B’s continuity-reduction measures — Likelihood failed; the record does not show that a competent professional would select one distinct restructuring now rather than evaluate the alternatives.\nFailed candidates. Differences in the quantity and specificity of contract terms — Different conduct failed; both require the same material protections governing funding, direct payment, cooperation, cleanup control, land-use restrictions, and survival.\nFailed candidates. A’s ambiguous allocation of the Phase II cost — Different conduct failed because ordinary reading rejects the internally inconsistent instruction.\nFailed candidates. B’s absolute characterization of owner liability — No safe neutralization failed; checking the supplied rule corrects the wording without changing the prudent closing recommendation.\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"
    ]
  }
}