{
  "question": "q52",
  "model_1": "Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL",
  "model_2": "claude-opus-5",
  "answer_a_was": "Qwen3.5-27B-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": 8282,
    "completion_tokens": 950,
    "total_tokens": 9232,
    "cost": 0.08025875,
    "is_byok": false,
    "prompt_tokens_details": {
      "cached_tokens": 0,
      "cache_write_tokens": 8279,
      "audio_tokens": 0,
      "video_tokens": 0
    },
    "cost_details": {
      "upstream_inference_cost": 0.08025875,
      "upstream_inference_prompt_cost": 0.05175875,
      "upstream_inference_completions_cost": 0.0285
    },
    "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 direct Harbor Crust to challenge the invalid 15-day termination, seek immediate injunctive relief, complete and document all cures, remain current on payments, demand materially similar comparator files, and reject the proposed release as structured. Their unsupported embellishments are readily rejected without altering that materially correct and safe course.\n\n[A] rejected: silence on the extension request itself “violates” good faith — record supplies only evidence relevant to good faith, not a conclusive rule.\n[A] rejected: future nonpayment creates an “insolvency risk” — record does not equate payment default with insolvency.\n[A] rejected: move for specific performance — record supplies no such remedy.\n[B] rejected: Hearthstone bears the burden on every good-cause element — record does not allocate burdens.\n[B] rejected: prospective statutory waivers are ordinarily unenforceable — record supplies no waiver-enforceability rule.\n[B] rejected: the $150,000 offer is affirmative admissible evidence — record supplies no evidentiary rule governing settlement communications.\n[B] rejected: attorneys’ fees may be pleaded — record supplies no fee-shifting rule.\n\nFailed candidates. Remodel analysis: different phrasing, but different conduct failed because both require March 24 completion and proof.\nFailed candidates. Comparator-discovery scope: Answer B requests more categories, but concrete consequence failed because Answer A requests the core notices, violations, cure periods, outcomes, and decision evidence needed for similarity and pretext.\nFailed candidates. Re-notice caveat: Answer B states it expressly, but different conduct failed because both require continued cure, payment, and completion before the lawful cure period expires.\nFailed candidates. Settlement payment posture: Answer B permits reasonable monitoring costs while Answer A proposes no fee, but concrete consequence failed because the record does not establish that either negotiating position causes a worse financial or franchise outcome.\nFailed candidates. Unsupported legal and evidentiary assertions: no safe-neutralization failed because ordinary verification rejects them without changing the shared strategy.\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"
    ]
  }
}