{
  "question": "q52",
  "model_1": "Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL",
  "model_2": "Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL",
  "answer_a_was": "Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL",
  "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": 11770,
    "completion_tokens": 1574,
    "total_tokens": 13344,
    "cost": 0.12077875,
    "is_byok": false,
    "prompt_tokens_details": {
      "cached_tokens": 0,
      "cache_write_tokens": 11767,
      "audio_tokens": 0,
      "video_tokens": 0
    },
    "cost_details": {
      "upstream_inference_cost": 0.12077875,
      "upstream_inference_prompt_cost": 0.07355875,
      "upstream_inference_completions_cost": 0.04722
    },
    "completion_tokens_details": {
      "reasoning_tokens": 1207,
      "image_tokens": 0,
      "audio_tokens": 0
    }
  },
  "eval_prompt_sha256": "7e58b951cb86e4deba3b60fd01e9b9bd247ebe9883e1c9e43b24acffb1fd4667",
  "report": "TIE, FUNCTIONALLY EQUIVALENT.\n\nBasis. Both answers direct Harbor Crust to seek immediate injunctive relief against the defective March 16 termination, continue curing and paying undisputed obligations, complete and document the remodel, demand comparator evidence, and reject the $150,000 blanket-release proposal. Their differences do not demonstrate a materially different action or client outcome on the supplied record.\n\n[B] rejected: withholding a disputed amount could create an “insolvency risk” — record contains no disputed future amount or facts indicating insolvency.\n[B] rejected: the automated logger “neutralizes the safety risk entirely” — record supports continuous documentation, not elimination of all refrigeration risk.\n[A] rejected: the $150,000 release demand itself supports bad faith or pretext — record lacks facts establishing Hearthstone’s motive.\n[B] rejected: the release request suggests Hearthstone knows its termination lacks legal standing — record lacks facts establishing Hearthstone’s knowledge or motive.\n\nFailed candidates. Payment instruction covering all future fees rather than only undisputed amounts — record support failed because no disputed future obligation is identified.\nFailed candidates. Different comparator-demand scope and detail — concrete consequence failed because the record does not establish that B’s narrower request would omit any actual comparator.\nFailed candidates. A’s narrow-release counterproposal versus B’s enhanced-reporting proposal — different conduct failed because both reject the existing deal and preserve future challenge rights.\nFailed candidates. B’s request for specific performance in addition to injunctive relief — concrete consequence failed because both first seek immediate relief preserving the franchise.\nFailed candidates. Different characterizations of remodel materiality and safety cure — different conduct failed because both require March 24 completion, continued logging, and interim monitoring.\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"
    ]
  }
}