{
  "question": "q42",
  "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": "A",
  "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": 4777,
    "completion_tokens": 1950,
    "total_tokens": 6727,
    "cost": 0.0883525,
    "is_byok": false,
    "prompt_tokens_details": {
      "cached_tokens": 0,
      "cache_write_tokens": 4774,
      "audio_tokens": 0,
      "video_tokens": 0
    },
    "cost_details": {
      "upstream_inference_cost": 0.0883525,
      "upstream_inference_prompt_cost": 0.0298525,
      "upstream_inference_completions_cost": 0.0585
    },
    "completion_tokens_details": {
      "reasoning_tokens": 1536,
      "image_tokens": 0,
      "audio_tokens": 0
    }
  },
  "eval_prompt_sha256": "7e58b951cb86e4deba3b60fd01e9b9bd247ebe9883e1c9e43b24acffb1fd4667",
  "provenance_date": "2026-08-08",
  "report": "ANSWER A IS MATERIALLY BETTER.\n\nBasis: Answer A correctly limits any proven debt to $3,200 and therefore preserves a $12,000 net affirmative recovery. Answer B instead sets off the unsupported $3,680 demand, reducing Ellis’s stated recovery to $11,520 and conceding the unauthorized $480.\n\nProof:\nExact difference: A deducts at most $3,200 from the $15,200 counterclaim; B deducts $3,680.\nDifferent conduct: A’s reader demands a $12,000 net judgment; B’s reader demands only $11,520.\nConcrete consequence: Ellis receives or preserves $480 less under B’s calculation.\nRecord support: The original statement supports $3,200, and no contract or supplied law authorizes the additional $480.\nMaterial magnitude: The error directly reduces Ellis’s financial recovery by $480.\nLikelihood: A rational professional would use the stated net value in pleadings, judgment calculations, and settlement negotiations.\nNo safe neutralization by ordinary verification: Correcting B requires re-deriving the confidently stated net recovery using the omitted $3,200 ceiling.\n\n[B] rejected: “Payment would waive statutory rights and validate their standing” — record lacks any waiver-by-payment rule.\n[B] rejected: settlement for “Dismissal with Prejudice and No Payment” — internally inconsistent with B’s stated entitlement to affirmative recovery.\n\nFailed candidates: No-payment settlement recommendation — no safe neutralization failed because B’s own damages analysis and conclusion support affirmative recovery.\nFailed candidates: Payment-waiver assertion — record support failed.\nFailed candidates: Ownership phrasing — different conduct failed because both readers challenge ownership and seek dismissal.\nFailed candidates: Attorney fees being “covered in full” — concrete consequence failed because both answers seek the statutorily awarded fees.\n\nHard stop: Because Answer B deducted the unsupported $480 from Ellis’s recovery, the reader would likely demand $11,520 instead of $12,000, causing Ellis to experience a $480 reduction in affirmative recovery.",
  "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"
    ]
  }
}