{
  "question": "q44",
  "model_1": "DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS",
  "model_2": "claude-opus-5",
  "answer_a_was": "DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS",
  "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": 7320,
    "completion_tokens": 2211,
    "total_tokens": 9531,
    "cost": 0.11207625,
    "is_byok": false,
    "prompt_tokens_details": {
      "cached_tokens": 0,
      "cache_write_tokens": 7317,
      "audio_tokens": 0,
      "video_tokens": 0
    },
    "cost_details": {
      "upstream_inference_cost": 0.11207625,
      "upstream_inference_prompt_cost": 0.04574625,
      "upstream_inference_completions_cost": 0.06633
    },
    "completion_tokens_details": {
      "reasoning_tokens": 1866,
      "image_tokens": 0,
      "audio_tokens": 0
    }
  },
  "eval_prompt_sha256": "7e58b951cb86e4deba3b60fd01e9b9bd247ebe9883e1c9e43b24acffb1fd4667",
  "provenance_date": "2026-08-08",
  "report": "TIE, FUNCTIONALLY EQUIVALENT.\n\nBasis. Both answers direct supervisors to avoid threats, interrogation, promises, surveillance, and selective enforcement; accurately discuss bargaining, dues, strikes, and the preplanned increase; respect employee choice; and preserve and escalate complaints. After ordinary verification rejects Answer B’s unsupported claims of an existing no-closure decision and counsel clearance, both readers reach the same materially safe course.\n\n[B] rejected: “Cleared by Labor Counsel” — record lacks any counsel clearance.\n[B] rejected: “We have no objective facts outside our control supporting it, and no such decision exists” — record lacks information establishing whether an operational decision exists.\n[B] rejected: “There is no such plan” — record lacks information establishing the absence of a plan.\n[B] rejected: “attached” union dues and initiation-fee schedule — record contains no attached schedule.\n\nFailed candidates. Unsupported no-closure assurance — first failed element: 7, no safe neutralization.\nFailed candidates. Claimed counsel clearance — first failed element: 7, no safe neutralization.\nFailed candidates. Claimed attached dues schedule — first failed element: 7, no safe neutralization.\nFailed candidates. Answer B’s categorical permission for parking-lot discussion — first failed element: 3, no concrete consequence supported by the record.\nFailed candidates. Answer B’s “it stays between us” response to voluntary views — first failed element: 2, the separate complaint protocol still requires escalation.\nFailed candidates. Answer B’s broader preservation hold — first failed element: 3, no concrete client harm is established.\n\nHard stop. It 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"
    ]
  }
}