{
  "question": "q46",
  "model_1": "Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL",
  "model_2": "claude-opus-5",
  "answer_a_was": "claude-opus-5",
  "answer_b_was": "Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL",
  "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": 10259,
    "completion_tokens": 1446,
    "total_tokens": 11705,
    "cost": 0.107495,
    "is_byok": false,
    "prompt_tokens_details": {
      "cached_tokens": 0,
      "cache_write_tokens": 10256,
      "audio_tokens": 0,
      "video_tokens": 0
    },
    "cost_details": {
      "upstream_inference_cost": 0.107495,
      "upstream_inference_prompt_cost": 0.064115,
      "upstream_inference_completions_cost": 0.04338
    },
    "completion_tokens_details": {
      "reasoning_tokens": 1165,
      "image_tokens": 0,
      "audio_tokens": 0
    }
  },
  "eval_prompt_sha256": "7e58b951cb86e4deba3b60fd01e9b9bd247ebe9883e1c9e43b24acffb1fd4667",
  "report": "TIE, FUNCTIONALLY EQUIVALENT.\n\nBasis. Both answers direct Silverline to omit the waived solicitation challenge, treat September 4 as the knowledge date, and ensure Board receipt by September 11 rather than pursue the agency-first sequence. Both preserve the automatic stay through a substantively adequate Board protest, request protected access and later supplementation, and identify discretionary Board or court relief as the fallback.\n\n[A] rejected: conditional disparate-treatment Count IV — record lacks any fact that the Authority relaxed the experience requirement for Atlas.\n[A] rejected: independently inadequate documentation of the tradeoff — record lacks facts concerning the adequacy of the tradeoff documentation.\n[A] rejected: an injunction motion would cost six figures — record lacks litigation-cost inputs.\n[B] rejected: Atlas can be made whole for delay costs — record lacks facts or rules establishing such compensation.\n\nFailed candidates. September 7 versus September 8 recommended filing — concrete consequence failed.\nFailed candidates. Conditional disparate-treatment count versus omission — concrete consequence failed.\nFailed candidates. Agency protest concurrently versus only after Board filing — concrete consequence failed.\nFailed candidates. Additional tradeoff-documentation theory — concrete consequence failed.\nFailed candidates. Express request for proposal and protest costs — record support failed.\nFailed candidates. Differences in injunction-factor framing — different conduct failed.\n\nHard stop. The required 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"
    ]
  }
}