{
  "question": "q46",
  "model_1": "DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS",
  "model_2": "claude-opus-5",
  "answer_a_was": "claude-opus-5",
  "answer_b_was": "DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS",
  "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": 6981,
    "completion_tokens": 845,
    "total_tokens": 7826,
    "cost": 0.0689775,
    "is_byok": false,
    "prompt_tokens_details": {
      "cached_tokens": 0,
      "cache_write_tokens": 6978,
      "audio_tokens": 0,
      "video_tokens": 0
    },
    "cost_details": {
      "upstream_inference_cost": 0.0689775,
      "upstream_inference_prompt_cost": 0.0436275,
      "upstream_inference_completions_cost": 0.02535
    },
    "completion_tokens_details": {
      "reasoning_tokens": 516,
      "image_tokens": 0,
      "audio_tokens": 0
    }
  },
  "eval_prompt_sha256": "7e58b951cb86e4deba3b60fd01e9b9bd247ebe9883e1c9e43b24acffb1fd4667",
  "provenance_date": "2026-08-08",
  "report": "TIE, FUNCTIONALLY EQUIVALENT.\n\nBoth answers direct Silverline to omit the waived solicitation challenge, file the Board protest by September 11 rather than pursue the agency-first sequence, plead the three supported post-award grounds, request protected access, and supplement after the agency report. They therefore preserve the same automatic stay and place Silverline on the same materially safe procedural path.\n\n[A] rejected: conditional disparate-treatment ground concerning the five-year requirement — record lacks facts indicating Atlas lacked the required experience or received relaxed treatment.\n[A] rejected: independently inadequate documentation of the best-value tradeoff — record lacks facts describing the adequacy of the tradeoff documentation.\n[A] rejected: entitlement to proposal-preparation and protest costs — record lacks a rule authorizing those remedies.\n\nFailed candidates. Recommended filing date: Different conduct failed; both require Board receipt before September 11 and preserve the stay.\nFailed candidates. Conditional disparate-treatment count: Record support failed; no supplied fact suggests unequal enforcement of the experience requirement.\nFailed candidates. Independent documentation challenge: Record support failed; the record addresses disputed scoring, not deficient documentation.\nFailed candidates. Additional requested costs: Record support failed; the governing rules do not establish their availability.\nFailed candidates. Additional Board discretionary-relief request if the stay is lost: Likelihood failed; both plans preserve the stay, and no record-supported event makes loss likely.\nFailed candidates. Greater procedural detail and receipt-confirmation steps in Answer A: Concrete consequence failed; both answers expressly require timely Board receipt and proof of receipt.\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"
    ],
    "retained": [
      "substantive report",
      "verdict code",
      "winner mapping",
      "A/B assignment",
      "model and judge identifiers",
      "finish reason",
      "token counts",
      "provenance date"
    ]
  }
}