{
  "question": "q43",
  "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": 6062,
    "completion_tokens": 1857,
    "total_tokens": 7919,
    "cost": 0.09359375,
    "is_byok": false,
    "prompt_tokens_details": {
      "cached_tokens": 0,
      "cache_write_tokens": 6059,
      "audio_tokens": 0,
      "video_tokens": 0
    },
    "cost_details": {
      "upstream_inference_cost": 0.09359375,
      "upstream_inference_prompt_cost": 0.03788375,
      "upstream_inference_completions_cost": 0.05571
    },
    "completion_tokens_details": {
      "reasoning_tokens": 1552,
      "image_tokens": 0,
      "audio_tokens": 0
    }
  },
  "eval_prompt_sha256": "7e58b951cb86e4deba3b60fd01e9b9bd247ebe9883e1c9e43b24acffb1fd4667",
  "provenance_date": "2026-08-08",
  "report": "TIE, FUNCTIONALLY EQUIVALENT.\n\nBasis. Both answers direct Sora to authorize the licensed $1,400 repair today, pay the contractor, deduct $1,400, and timely pay the remaining $250 with the invoice and proof of payment. Both also direct her not to deduct the $260 hotel expense, withhold all rent, or terminate immediately, while preserving evidence and pursuing the hotel claim separately.\n\n[A] rejected: retaliation protection extends to non-renewal, violation notices, and fee assessments — Rule 8 specifies only eviction and rent increases.\n[B] rejected: retaliation may support recovery of damages — the record supplies a rebuttable presumption but no damages remedy.\n[B] rejected: sending a physical rent check by certified mail on Friday necessarily constitutes timely payment — the record lacks a rule establishing when mailed rent is deemed paid.\n\nFailed candidate: Friday payment transmission — record support fails because the lease’s accepted payment methods and any mailbox rule are not supplied.\nFailed candidate: retaliation scope and remedies — concrete consequence fails because neither unsupported extension changes the recommended compliant conduct.\nFailed candidate: additional documentation and failed-part preservation — concrete consequence fails because both preserve the evidence required to support the same deduction.\nFailed candidate: termination analysis — different conduct fails because both advise Sora not to move out.\nFailed candidate: hotel-expense demand procedure — different conduct fails because both advise separate recovery rather than rent deduction.\n\nHard stop. The sentence cannot be completed with a concrete, record-supported consequence.",
  "judge_reasoning": "**Evaluating rent submission details**\n\nI need to look at the differences in the termination explanation regarding hotel demand methods and embellishments. For instance, there's a hard stop tied to the date statement that can't be completed in a concise manner. I have to consider if B's advice about mailing checks might arrive late versus A's instructions to pay on/before Friday. This situation seems material; if B’s timeline leads to late rent submission, it introduces a risk of nonpayment or default.",
  "_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"
    ]
  }
}