{
  "question": "q45",
  "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": 6472,
    "completion_tokens": 2634,
    "total_tokens": 9106,
    "cost": 0.11946625,
    "is_byok": false,
    "prompt_tokens_details": {
      "cached_tokens": 0,
      "cache_write_tokens": 6469,
      "audio_tokens": 0,
      "video_tokens": 0
    },
    "cost_details": {
      "upstream_inference_cost": 0.11946625,
      "upstream_inference_prompt_cost": 0.04044625,
      "upstream_inference_completions_cost": 0.07902
    },
    "completion_tokens_details": {
      "reasoning_tokens": 2070,
      "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 directs Ironvale to restore the $1.75 differential immediately and make affected employees whole before bargaining over future changes; Answer B recommends bargaining and potentially “splitting the difference” without directing restoration of the unlawfully altered status quo. Following Answer B therefore leaves Ironvale continuing the pay reduction and accumulating additional wage-remedy and unfair-practice exposure.\n\nProof (winner verdicts only).\nExact difference. Answer B omits immediate restoration and make-whole relief; Answer A expressly requires both.\nDifferent conduct. Answer A’s reader restores the differential now and bargains prospectively; Answer B’s reader may leave the cut in effect while negotiating.\nConcrete consequence. Affected employees continue losing $1.75 per evening-shift hour, increasing Ironvale’s remedial liability.\nRecord support. The change occurred during bargaining without agreement, past practice, or emergency, and the internal email establishes a bargaining-pressure purpose.\nMaterial magnitude. The recurring hourly loss affects every covered evening shift and grows until restoration.\nLikelihood. Answer B’s immediate-action and strategy sections prescribe bargaining and a possible compromise rather than restoration, making continued nonpayment a likely implementation.\nNo safe neutralization by ordinary verification. Reaching restoration and make-whole relief from Answer B requires deriving the remedial response that the answer omitted.\n\n[B] rejected: “~48 eligible strikers” and “45 others” — record lacks a total striker headcount and the figures are internally inconsistent with treatment of the third striker.\n[B] rejected: denial of reinstatement “constitutes a second ULP” — record lacks a supplied rule separately classifying that denial as an unfair labor practice.\n\nFailed candidates. Misconduct investigation versus immediate denial — different conduct failed because both answers contemplate evidence-based individual processing and reach the same outcomes on the supplied facts.\nFailed candidates. Unsupported striker counts — no safe neutralization failed because the counts are readily rejected while the instruction to reinstate every eligible striker remains.\nFailed candidates. “Second ULP” characterization — different conduct failed because both answers require immediate reinstatement and June 25 back pay.\nFailed candidates. Replacement severance and voluntary-departure options — concrete consequence failed because these are conditional possibilities unsupported by replacement-contract facts.\nFailed candidates. Disciplining the bargaining lead — concrete consequence failed because the record establishes no client outcome from that internal personnel action.\nFailed candidates. Using reinstatement as settlement leverage — different conduct failed because Answer B separately directs unconditional immediate reinstatement.\n\nHard stop. Because Answer B omitted immediate restoration of the unlawfully eliminated differential, the reader would likely bargain while leaving the cut in effect instead of restoring the prior rate before bargaining, causing Ironvale to incur continuing liability for employees’ $1.75-per-hour evening-shift losses.",
  "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"
    ]
  }
}