{
  "question": "q49",
  "model_1": "Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL",
  "model_2": "claude-opus-5",
  "answer_a_was": "Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL",
  "answer_b_was": "claude-opus-5",
  "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": 7405,
    "completion_tokens": 1271,
    "total_tokens": 8676,
    "cost": 0.0844075,
    "is_byok": false,
    "prompt_tokens_details": {
      "cached_tokens": 0,
      "cache_write_tokens": 7402,
      "audio_tokens": 0,
      "video_tokens": 0
    },
    "cost_details": {
      "upstream_inference_cost": 0.0844075,
      "upstream_inference_prompt_cost": 0.0462775,
      "upstream_inference_completions_cost": 0.03813
    },
    "completion_tokens_details": {
      "reasoning_tokens": 935,
      "image_tokens": 0,
      "audio_tokens": 0
    }
  },
  "eval_prompt_sha256": "7e58b951cb86e4deba3b60fd01e9b9bd247ebe9883e1c9e43b24acffb1fd4667",
  "report": "TIE, FUNCTIONALLY EQUIVALENT.\n\nBasis. Both answers direct Adrian to concede default, uphold the sole-remedy liquidated-damages clause, allow retention of the $90,000 deposit, tender the $18,000 shortfall, and reject all additional damages and fees. A competent reader following either answer reaches the same $108,000 total exposure and materially identical settlement and litigation position.\n\n[B] rejected: Adrian missed the diligence requirement and his delayed application likely caused the late denial — record lacks facts establishing his overall diligence or causation.\n[B] rejected: litigating the contingency invites fee-shifting or bad-faith consequences — record lacks any applicable fee-shifting or bad-faith rule.\n[B] rejected: the American-rule default makes fees equally unavailable to Adrian — record supplies only that no provision or rule authorizes the seller’s fees.\n[A] rejected: possible interest, court costs, or settlement premium — record lacks any rule or fact supporting those additions.\n[A] rejected: seller removed the property from the market after default — record establishes removal for 55 days but not that timing.\n\nFailed candidates. Different characterizations of diligence and denial causation — record support failed.\nFailed candidates. Different warnings concerning fees and bad faith — record support failed.\nFailed candidates. Declaratory judgment versus judgment on the pleadings as an additional procedural vehicle — concrete consequence failed.\nFailed candidates. Conditional interest, costs, or settlement premium versus a strict $18,000 tender — likelihood failed.\nFailed candidates. Different wording concerning escrow and release mechanics — concrete consequence failed.\n\nHard stop. It 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"
    ]
  }
}