{
  "question": "q53",
  "model_1": "DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS",
  "model_2": "Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL",
  "answer_a_was": "Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL",
  "answer_b_was": "DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS",
  "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": 7884,
    "completion_tokens": 2380,
    "total_tokens": 10264,
    "cost": 0.12067125,
    "is_byok": false,
    "prompt_tokens_details": {
      "cached_tokens": 0,
      "cache_write_tokens": 7881,
      "audio_tokens": 0,
      "video_tokens": 0
    },
    "cost_details": {
      "upstream_inference_cost": 0.12067125,
      "upstream_inference_prompt_cost": 0.04927125,
      "upstream_inference_completions_cost": 0.0714
    },
    "completion_tokens_details": {
      "reasoning_tokens": 2017,
      "image_tokens": 0,
      "audio_tokens": 0
    }
  },
  "eval_prompt_sha256": "7e58b951cb86e4deba3b60fd01e9b9bd247ebe9883e1c9e43b24acffb1fd4667",
  "provenance_date": "2026-08-08",
  "report": "TIE, FUNCTIONALLY EQUIVALENT.\n\nBasis. Both answers place Norvale on the same material path: adopt a prospective unilateral MAP policy limited to public advertising, reject retailer assent and enforcement assurances, use objective exceptions and independent monitoring, and document unilateral enforcement. Ordinary verification removes the disputed statements without requiring reconstruction or leaving Norvale unable to act safely.\n\n[A] rejected: “Continued orders after the Effective Date imply acceptance of the supply conditions.” — cited authority says otherwise under Rules 1 and 3.\n[A] rejected: characterization of the proposed agreement features as a “per se violation” — cited authority says otherwise under Rule 4.\n[B] rejected: categorical treatment of “see price in cart” as an advertised below-MAP price — record lacks the facts or rule needed to classify that presentation.\n[B] rejected: HHI is “roughly around 1,000” — record lacks the distribution of the remaining 32 percent market share.\n\nFailed candidates. A’s implied-acceptance clause — no safe neutralization failed because ordinary verification permits its deletion while leaving a complete unilateral policy.\nFailed candidates. A’s per se characterization — different conduct failed because both readers reject the same agreement-producing practices.\nFailed candidates. B’s checkout-message treatment — concrete consequence failed because the record identifies no affected advertisement or enforcement event.\nFailed candidates. B’s approximate HHI — different conduct failed because both readers reach the same market-power assessment and recommendation.\nFailed candidates. B’s 30-day notice and centralized administration details — concrete consequence failed because no different client outcome is established.\nFailed candidates. A’s collection of a receipt-only signature — concrete consequence failed because Rule 3 expressly permits receipt-only acknowledgment.\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"
    ]
  }
}