{
  "question": "q47",
  "model_1": "DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS",
  "model_2": "Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL",
  "answer_a_was": "Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL",
  "answer_b_was": "DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS",
  "verdict_code": "B",
  "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": 6048,
    "completion_tokens": 2023,
    "total_tokens": 8071,
    "cost": 0.09848625,
    "is_byok": false,
    "prompt_tokens_details": {
      "cached_tokens": 0,
      "cache_write_tokens": 6045,
      "audio_tokens": 0,
      "video_tokens": 0
    },
    "cost_details": {
      "upstream_inference_cost": 0.09848625,
      "upstream_inference_prompt_cost": 0.03779625,
      "upstream_inference_completions_cost": 0.06069
    },
    "completion_tokens_details": {
      "reasoning_tokens": 1539,
      "image_tokens": 0,
      "audio_tokens": 0
    }
  },
  "eval_prompt_sha256": "7e58b951cb86e4deba3b60fd01e9b9bd247ebe9883e1c9e43b24acffb1fd4667",
  "provenance_date": "2026-08-08",
  "report": "ANSWER B IS MATERIALLY BETTER.\n\nBasis. Answer A affirmatively proposes resolving any validated $420,000 idle-labor claim “without further profit markup,” while Answer B preserves the supplied 7% profit entitlement. If that reserved performance cost is established, Answer A’s term reduces Quillstone’s recovery by $29,400.\n\nProof.\nExact difference: A excludes profit on the reserved claim; B claims $29,400, calculated as 7% of $420,000, if the cost becomes allowable.\nDifferent conduct: A’s reader offers settlement of the validated claim at $420,000; B’s reader seeks $449,400.\nConcrete consequence: Quillstone receives $29,400 less under A’s proposed term if the reserved cost is established.\nRecord support: Governing rules provide 7% profit on allowable performance costs, and both answers condition recovery on establishing the $420,000 as allowable.\nMaterial magnitude: The difference directly reduces Quillstone’s contractual settlement recovery by $29,400.\nLikelihood: A’s express no-profit term changes the current negotiating position rather than merely discussing a hypothetical legal issue.\nNo safe neutralization by ordinary verification: The no-profit language is a permissible settlement concession, not an obvious factual or legal impossibility that the reader can simply disregard.\n\n[A] rejected: “NRS denied access” as an established fact — record does not establish Government direction or responsibility for the alleged denial.\n[A] rejected: completed weather records “support this claim” — record states only that they are complete and that excusability remains conditional.\n[B] rejected: entitlement to judicial enforcement and an adverse inference — record lacks a supplied rule establishing those remedies.\n\nFailed candidates.\nA’s internally conflicting broad release and idle-labor reservation — likelihood failed because a competent professional would clarify the facial conflict before execution.\nDifferent record-production scopes and timetables — concrete consequence failed.\nDifferent inventory-completion wording — different conduct failed.\nB’s unsupported adverse-inference language — record support failed.\nA’s access and weather overstatements — no safe neutralization failed because the supplied record permits their rejection before action.\n\nHard stop. Because Answer A omitted profit on any established idle-labor cost, the reader would likely offer $420,000 instead of $449,400, causing Quillstone to experience a $29,400 reduction in settlement recovery.",
  "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"
    ]
  }
}