{
  "question": "q45",
  "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": 10144,
    "completion_tokens": 1966,
    "total_tokens": 12110,
    "cost": 0.12237625,
    "is_byok": false,
    "prompt_tokens_details": {
      "cached_tokens": 0,
      "cache_write_tokens": 10141,
      "audio_tokens": 0,
      "video_tokens": 0
    },
    "cost_details": {
      "upstream_inference_cost": 0.12237625,
      "upstream_inference_prompt_cost": 0.06339625,
      "upstream_inference_completions_cost": 0.05898
    },
    "completion_tokens_details": {
      "reasoning_tokens": 1552,
      "image_tokens": 0,
      "audio_tokens": 0
    }
  },
  "eval_prompt_sha256": "7e58b951cb86e4deba3b60fd01e9b9bd247ebe9883e1c9e43b24acffb1fd4667",
  "report": "TIE, FUNCTIONALLY EQUIVALENT.\n\nBasis. Both answers direct Ironvale to treat the differential cut as unlawful, classify the mixed-motive strike as an unfair-practice strike, immediately reinstate nonmisconduct strikers by displacing replacements, address back pay from June 25 subject to mitigation, investigate misconduct individually, restore the differential, and resume bargaining. Their unsupported estimates and ancillary remedial suggestions do not alter that shared materially correct and safe path.\n\n[B] rejected: 85–90% adjudication estimate — record lacks any probability inputs.\n[B] rejected: approximately $90,000 weekly back-pay exposure and $3,600 annual differential value — record lacks actual wage rates, schedules, overtime, and affected-employee counts.\n[B] rejected: interest, notice-posting, bargaining-order, and replacement promissory-estoppel exposure — record lacks governing rules or facts establishing those remedies or claims.\n[A] rejected: employer burden to prove mitigation and specified job-search obligations — supplied rules establish only that back pay is subject to mitigation.\n\nFailed candidate: Immediate denial for the recorded threat versus conditional denial — different conduct failed because both answers require an individualized credibility assessment before final action.\nFailed candidate: Reinstatement “within 5 business days” versus “immediately” — concrete consequence failed because “within” permits immediate action and no actual delay is demonstrated.\nFailed candidate: Retroactive differential payment with interest — record support failed because the supplied rules do not establish interest or specify that remedy.\nFailed candidate: Formal concession versus preserving litigation defenses — concrete consequence failed because both answers recommend the same immediate cure and permit settlement without admitting liability.\nFailed candidate: Replacement severance and possible reliance claims — record support failed because no assurances or replacement contracts were supplied.\nFailed candidate: Additional procedural and compliance recommendations — material magnitude failed because none changes the required reinstatement, back-pay, misconduct, or bargaining actions.\n\nHard stop. The sentence cannot be completed with a concrete, record-supported consequence because both answers place Ironvale on the same material course.",
  "judge_reasoning": "",
  "_public_record": {
    "type": "published record",
    "policy": "../../PUBLIC_RECORD_POLICY.md",
    "transformations": [
      "non-substantive machine metadata normalized",
      "published-record annotation added"
    ]
  }
}