{
  "question": "q43",
  "model_1": "Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL",
  "model_2": "claude-opus-5",
  "answer_a_was": "Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL",
  "answer_b_was": "claude-opus-5",
  "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": 9021,
    "completion_tokens": 1321,
    "total_tokens": 10342,
    "cost": 0.0960075,
    "is_byok": false,
    "prompt_tokens_details": {
      "cached_tokens": 0,
      "cache_write_tokens": 9018,
      "audio_tokens": 0,
      "video_tokens": 0
    },
    "cost_details": {
      "upstream_inference_cost": 0.0960075,
      "upstream_inference_prompt_cost": 0.0563775,
      "upstream_inference_completions_cost": 0.03963
    },
    "completion_tokens_details": {
      "reasoning_tokens": 1034,
      "image_tokens": 0,
      "audio_tokens": 0
    }
  },
  "eval_prompt_sha256": "7e58b951cb86e4deba3b60fd01e9b9bd247ebe9883e1c9e43b24acffb1fd4667",
  "report": "TIE, FUNCTIONALLY EQUIVALENT.\n\nBasis. Both readers would authorize and pay for the licensed $1,400 repair today, then timely pay $250 with the invoice, proof of payment, and supporting records. Both would preserve but not deduct the $260 hotel claim, avoid total withholding or immediate termination, and retain evidence for any retaliation dispute.\n\nA rejected: retaliation protection extends to refusing payment, harassment, or any adverse action — Rule 8 identifies only eviction and rent increases.\nB rejected: the landlord “tried to suppress the remedy” — record lacks evidence of the landlord’s intent.\n\nFailed candidates. Hotel-credit timing — concrete consequence failed because any offset depends on a future landlord agreement not in the record.\nFailed candidates. B’s advice to preserve failed parts, filters, and warranty — concrete consequence failed because both readers already preserve the contractor’s dispositive causation findings.\nFailed candidates. Different instructions following refused payment or retaliation — likelihood failed because no such event has occurred or is established by the record.\nFailed candidates. B’s cautions about repair overages and a future furnace failure — record support failed because the quote is fixed and no later failure is presented.\nFailed candidates. A’s broader retaliation description — different conduct failed because both readers still timely pay $250 and preserve any adverse notice for challenge.\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"
    ]
  }
}