{
  "question": "q52",
  "model_1": "Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL",
  "model_2": "claude-opus-5",
  "answer_a_was": "claude-opus-5",
  "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": 13321,
    "completion_tokens": 1325,
    "total_tokens": 14646,
    "cost": 0.1230025,
    "is_byok": false,
    "prompt_tokens_details": {
      "cached_tokens": 0,
      "cache_write_tokens": 13318,
      "audio_tokens": 0,
      "video_tokens": 0
    },
    "cost_details": {
      "upstream_inference_cost": 0.1230025,
      "upstream_inference_prompt_cost": 0.0832525,
      "upstream_inference_completions_cost": 0.03975
    },
    "completion_tokens_details": {
      "reasoning_tokens": 941,
      "image_tokens": 0,
      "audio_tokens": 0
    }
  },
  "eval_prompt_sha256": "7e58b951cb86e4deba3b60fd01e9b9bd247ebe9883e1c9e43b24acffb1fd4667",
  "report": "TIE, FUNCTIONALLY EQUIVALENT.\n\nBasis. Both answers direct Harbor Crust to challenge the defective 15-day termination, seek emergency injunctive relief, complete and document the remodel by March 24, maintain logging and current payments, demand comparator files, and reject the proposed broad release and future waiver. Their differences do not alter that materially correct and safe course or produce a demonstrated different outcome for Harbor Crust.\n\n[A] rejected: “Hearthstone bears the burden on all three elements” — record lacks burden-allocation rules.\n[A] rejected: prospective waivers are “ordinarily unenforceable” — record lacks waiver-enforceability rules.\n[A] rejected: the $150,000 offer is “affirmative evidence” of pretext — record lacks admissibility rules establishing that use.\n[A] rejected: comparator locations were “rivals” granted extensions for “the same conduct” — record does not establish ownership, material similarity, or exact violations.\n\nFailed candidate: Answer A’s stronger characterization of the log lapse and remodel as cured or substantially performed — different conduct failed; both answers require continued logging, proof, and March 24 completion.\nFailed candidate: Answer A’s unsupported burden, waiver, and evidentiary propositions — no safe neutralization failed to be proven; ordinary verification removes them without changing the recommended course.\nFailed candidate: Differences in comparator-discovery scope — concrete consequence failed; both demand the records needed to establish materially similar treatment under confidentiality protection.\nFailed candidate: Differences in proposed injunction conditions — concrete consequence failed; both protect operations through automated logging, reporting, inspections, remodel milestones, advertising controls, and continued payment.\nFailed candidate: Differences in settlement detail and acceptable payment — likelihood failed; both reject the existing $150,000 release package and preserve future statutory challenges.\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"
    ]
  }
}