{
  "question": "q49",
  "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": 4689,
    "completion_tokens": 1370,
    "total_tokens": 6059,
    "cost": 0.0704025,
    "is_byok": false,
    "prompt_tokens_details": {
      "cached_tokens": 0,
      "cache_write_tokens": 4686,
      "audio_tokens": 0,
      "video_tokens": 0
    },
    "cost_details": {
      "upstream_inference_cost": 0.0704025,
      "upstream_inference_prompt_cost": 0.0293025,
      "upstream_inference_completions_cost": 0.0411
    },
    "completion_tokens_details": {
      "reasoning_tokens": 1034,
      "image_tokens": 0,
      "audio_tokens": 0
    }
  },
  "eval_prompt_sha256": "7e58b951cb86e4deba3b60fd01e9b9bd247ebe9883e1c9e43b24acffb1fd4667",
  "provenance_date": "2026-08-08",
  "report": "TIE, FUNCTIONALLY EQUIVALENT.\n\nBasis. Both answers place Adrian on the same material path: concede default, enforce the sole-remedy clause, credit the $90,000 deposit, pay the $18,000 shortfall, and reject all additional damages, specific performance, and attorney fees. Their differences do not alter Adrian’s $108,000 total exposure or the materially correct settlement and litigation position.\n\n[A] rejected: the delayed application was “the likely cause” of the day-24 denial — record lacks facts establishing causation.\n[A] rejected: litigating the contingency “invites a fee-shifting or bad-faith argument elsewhere” — record lacks any supporting fee-shifting or bad-faith rule.\n[A] rejected: resolution should occur within 30 days and early motion practice will require no discovery — record lacks procedural rules or litigation-timing facts.\n\nFailed candidate: A’s causation statement concerning the late loan denial — concrete consequence failed because Adrian’s untimely application and failure to terminate independently defeat the contingency.\nFailed candidate: A’s release conditions and additional settlement mechanics — record support failed because no supplied fact establishes that B’s tender-and-defense approach produces a different consequence.\nFailed candidate: A’s procedural recommendations and litigation predictions — record support failed.\nFailed candidate: A’s mitigation discussion, absent from B — different conduct failed because both reject actual damages and accept the fixed $108,000 remedy.\nFailed candidate: A’s additional explanation that specific performance is moot after resale — different conduct failed because both conclude specific performance is unavailable.\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"
    ],
    "retained": [
      "substantive report",
      "verdict code",
      "winner mapping",
      "A/B assignment",
      "model and judge identifiers",
      "finish reason",
      "token counts",
      "provenance date"
    ]
  }
}