{
  "question": "q47",
  "model_1": "Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL",
  "model_2": "claude-opus-5",
  "answer_a_was": "claude-opus-5",
  "answer_b_was": "Qwen3.5-27B-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": 7596,
    "completion_tokens": 2989,
    "total_tokens": 10585,
    "cost": 0.13714125,
    "is_byok": false,
    "prompt_tokens_details": {
      "cached_tokens": 0,
      "cache_write_tokens": 7593,
      "audio_tokens": 0,
      "video_tokens": 0
    },
    "cost_details": {
      "upstream_inference_cost": 0.13714125,
      "upstream_inference_prompt_cost": 0.04747125,
      "upstream_inference_completions_cost": 0.08967
    },
    "completion_tokens_details": {
      "reasoning_tokens": 2588,
      "image_tokens": 0,
      "audio_tokens": 0
    }
  },
  "eval_prompt_sha256": "7e58b951cb86e4deba3b60fd01e9b9bd247ebe9883e1c9e43b24acffb1fd4667",
  "provenance_date": "2026-08-08",
  "report": "TIE, FUNCTIONALLY EQUIVALENT.\n\nBasis. Both answers place Quillstone on the same material path: acknowledge the 19 unexcused days, seek records before asserting the access delay and idle-labor claim, claim the correctly calculated $1,796,000 convenience settlement, and negotiate conversion with resolution of reprocurement liability. Their drafting and reservation differences do not establish a record-supported change in Quillstone’s ultimate recovery or legal position.\n\n[A] rejected: assertion that continued performance constituted Government acceptance and that withholding records makes default unsustainable — record lacks acceptance facts, and the supplied rules do not establish that consequence.\n[A] rejected: detailed mitigation actions, supporting tabs, and signed certification — record lacks those specific actions and documents.\n[B] rejected: assertion that Quillstone’s weather records support excusability — record establishes completeness but not what the records prove.\n[B] rejected: broad release of “all claims” — internally inconsistent with the specific idle-labor reservation that immediately follows.\n\nFailed candidates. A’s broader record demand and timetable — different conduct failed because both demand the records needed for critical-path and concurrency analysis before final resolution.\nFailed candidates. A’s proposed release of the idle-labor claim versus B’s reservation — concrete consequence failed because entitlement to the $420,000 is not established, and B’s conflicting release language would require clarification before execution.\nFailed candidates. B’s exclusion of 7% profit from any later idle-labor recovery — concrete consequence failed because the record does not establish that the reserved cost will become allowable or be recovered.\nFailed candidates. Differences in legal advocacy concerning default propriety — different conduct failed because both ultimately propose negotiated conversion rather than safe reliance on those assertions.\nFailed candidates. Unsupported factual confirmations — no safe neutralization failed because ordinary pre-submission verification would reject or confirm them without changing the established settlement computation or negotiation path.\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"
    ]
  }
}