{
  "question": "q52",
  "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": 13066,
    "completion_tokens": 1882,
    "total_tokens": 14948,
    "cost": 0.13811875,
    "is_byok": false,
    "prompt_tokens_details": {
      "cached_tokens": 0,
      "cache_write_tokens": 13063,
      "audio_tokens": 0,
      "video_tokens": 0
    },
    "cost_details": {
      "upstream_inference_cost": 0.13811875,
      "upstream_inference_prompt_cost": 0.08165875,
      "upstream_inference_completions_cost": 0.05646
    },
    "completion_tokens_details": {
      "reasoning_tokens": 1552,
      "image_tokens": 0,
      "audio_tokens": 0
    }
  },
  "eval_prompt_sha256": "7e58b951cb86e4deba3b60fd01e9b9bd247ebe9883e1c9e43b24acffb1fd4667",
  "report": "TIE, FUNCTIONALLY EQUIVALENT.\n\nBasis. Both answers direct Harbor Crust to enjoin the premature March 16 termination, complete and document the remodel, maintain the other cures, pay undisputed amounts, seek comparator discovery, and reject the proposed $150,000 release package. Both therefore place Harbor Crust on the same materially correct and safe litigation, cure, discovery, and settlement path.\n\n[A] rejected: “It is also not admissible or reliable evidence” — record lacks the evidentiary rules and foundation necessary to determine admissibility.\n[A] rejected: “Hearthstone cannot retroactively rely on a public-safety exception after the fact” — record lacks a rule making identification of the exception in the original notice independently dispositive.\n\nFailed candidates. Treatment of the March 1 notice as requiring withdrawal or reissuance: different conduct failed; both seek immediate injunctive relief and rescission.\nFailed candidates. Treatment of the former manager’s account: different conduct failed; both regard it as presently insufficient and demand the same underlying comparator files.\nFailed candidates. Breadth and detail of comparator discovery: concrete consequence failed; both request the facts needed to establish materially similar treatment.\nFailed candidates. Settlement fallback for documented contractual damages: likelihood failed; no such damages or contractual basis appears in the record, and both reject the current proposal.\nFailed candidates. Ancillary admissibility, retroactivity, duress, and unconscionability assertions: different conduct failed; neither answer relies on them for the recommended immediate action.\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"
    ]
  }
}