{
  "question": "q49",
  "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": 5264,
    "completion_tokens": 775,
    "total_tokens": 6039,
    "cost": 0.05614625,
    "is_byok": false,
    "prompt_tokens_details": {
      "cached_tokens": 0,
      "cache_write_tokens": 5261,
      "audio_tokens": 0,
      "video_tokens": 0
    },
    "cost_details": {
      "upstream_inference_cost": 0.05614625,
      "upstream_inference_prompt_cost": 0.03289625,
      "upstream_inference_completions_cost": 0.02325
    },
    "completion_tokens_details": {
      "reasoning_tokens": 516,
      "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 materially correct path: concede default, uphold the sole-remedy clause, permit retention of the $90,000 deposit, pay the $18,000 shortfall for total liability of $108,000, and reject all additional damages, specific performance, and attorney fees. Both recommend offering $18,000 for a release and defending against any excess demand.\n\n[A] rejected: the delayed application was “the likely cause” of the day-24 denial — record lacks lender-causation facts.\n[A] rejected: contesting the contingency “invites a fee-shifting or bad-faith argument elsewhere” — record lacks any rule authorizing that consequence.\n\nFailed candidates. B’s omission of a separate diligence analysis — different conduct failed; the missed application deadline and termination deadline independently defeat the defense.\nFailed candidates. A’s unsupported causation statement — record support failed.\nFailed candidates. A’s fee-shifting warning — record support failed.\nFailed candidates. A’s more specific tender and motion practice — concrete consequence failed; both answers recommend the same payment, release, and defense against excess claims.\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"
    ]
  }
}