{
  "question": "q49",
  "model_1": "DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS",
  "model_2": "Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL",
  "answer_a_was": "DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS",
  "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": 6552,
    "completion_tokens": 1951,
    "total_tokens": 8503,
    "cost": 0.09947625,
    "is_byok": false,
    "prompt_tokens_details": {
      "cached_tokens": 0,
      "cache_write_tokens": 6549,
      "audio_tokens": 0,
      "video_tokens": 0
    },
    "cost_details": {
      "upstream_inference_cost": 0.09947625,
      "upstream_inference_prompt_cost": 0.04094625,
      "upstream_inference_completions_cost": 0.05853
    },
    "completion_tokens_details": {
      "reasoning_tokens": 1680,
      "image_tokens": 0,
      "audio_tokens": 0
    }
  },
  "eval_prompt_sha256": "7e58b951cb86e4deba3b60fd01e9b9bd247ebe9883e1c9e43b24acffb1fd4667",
  "report": "TIE, FUNCTIONALLY EQUIVALENT.\n\nBasis. Both readers would concede Adrian’s default, enforce the sole-remedy clause, permit retention of the $90,000 deposit, tender the $18,000 shortfall, and reject actual damages, specific performance, and attorney fees. Answer B’s additional settlement and procedural suggestions do not establish a materially different, record-supported outcome.\n\n[B] rejected: assertion that the seller removed the property from the market “after default” — record lacks that timing.\n[B] rejected: possible interest or court costs beyond $18,000 — record lacks any rule authorizing them.\n\nFailed candidates.\nConditional interest or court costs — record support failed.\nPossible settlement premium — different conduct failed because Answer B only says Adrian may consider one.\nExpress release requirement — concrete consequence failed because the record does not show that paying without a release would leave any enforceable additional liability.\nPartial-summary-judgment recommendation — concrete consequence failed because both answers assert the same dispositive defense and cap.\nAnswer A’s omission of separate mitigation discussion — different conduct failed because both reject actual damages and preserve the full liquidated amount.\nDifferent explanatory treatment of later actual loss — different conduct failed.\nUnsupported timing of market removal — different conduct failed.\n\nHard stop. The sentence cannot be completed with a concrete, record-supported consequence.",
  "judge_reasoning": "**Analyzing court divergences**\n\nI need to examine the discrepancies between two outputs carefully. While they share the same core, one has inaccuracies, suggesting the seller removed the property after default, which isn't true. The core facts show the seller was off the market for 55 days, likely during the contract. \n\nI also need to evaluate differences in suggested costs and how that could influence outcomes. One option is more generic about payment, while the other introduces interest that might alter the final settlement. Overall, the implications of their differing approaches need further scrutiny.**Examining release discrepancies**\n\nI've noticed that one document mentions a \"mutual release,\" but it appears only the seller is actually released. The quote implies mutuality, while another list indicates it's just a seller's release. It's interesting that A doesn't address the release directly. \n\nA's advice to pay 18k may not suffice due to the lack of a release. If payment discharges the legal debt, litigation could still become an issue if not properly addressed. I should check if both approaches are materially inadequate or if there's anything I'm missing in understanding their positions better.**Evaluating seller property removal**\n\nI’m considering whether to reject B's claim that the seller removed the property after default. The record only states it was removed for 55 days, which doesn't necessarily connect to a default event. The phrasing in B's statement about removal is unsupported and needs neutralization. \n\nAlso, B’s mention of conditional interest and costs might not be solidly founded, as there's no provided rule backing those claims. Overall, the governing law appears exhaustive, and any unproven procedures won't hold up against the evidence.",
  "_public_record": {
    "type": "published record",
    "policy": "../../PUBLIC_RECORD_POLICY.md",
    "transformations": [
      "non-substantive machine metadata normalized",
      "published-record annotation added"
    ]
  }
}