{
  "question": "q53",
  "model_1": "Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL",
  "model_2": "claude-opus-5",
  "answer_a_was": "claude-opus-5",
  "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": 11412,
    "completion_tokens": 2766,
    "total_tokens": 14178,
    "cost": 0.15430125,
    "is_byok": false,
    "prompt_tokens_details": {
      "cached_tokens": 0,
      "cache_write_tokens": 11409,
      "audio_tokens": 0,
      "video_tokens": 0
    },
    "cost_details": {
      "upstream_inference_cost": 0.15430125,
      "upstream_inference_prompt_cost": 0.07132125,
      "upstream_inference_completions_cost": 0.08298
    },
    "completion_tokens_details": {
      "reasoning_tokens": 2286,
      "image_tokens": 0,
      "audio_tokens": 0
    }
  },
  "eval_prompt_sha256": "7e58b951cb86e4deba3b60fd01e9b9bd247ebe9883e1c9e43b24acffb1fd4667",
  "provenance_date": "2026-08-08",
  "report": "TIE, FUNCTIONALLY EQUIVALENT.\n\nBasis. Both answers put Norvale on the same material path: adopt a prospective advertising-only MAP policy, seek no assent, reject guarantees and negotiated exceptions, use independent monitoring, and enforce objective criteria unilaterally. Answer B’s inconsistent acceptance, discretionary-authorization, and per se language would be rejected through ordinary verification against the supplied rules, leaving a materially safe implementation equivalent to Answer A’s.\n\n[B] rejected: “Continued orders after the Effective Date imply acceptance of the supply conditions” — cited authority says otherwise under Rules 1–3.\n[B] rejected: the retailer “chooses to accept the terms or walk away” — cited authority says unilateral conduct requires no retailer assent.\n[B] rejected: “unless explicitly authorized by Norvale in writing for a specific campaign” — internally inconsistent with B’s automatic promotion periods and prohibition on negotiated exceptions.\n[B] rejected: characterization of the Sales methods as a “per se violation” — cited authority says resale-price restraints are judged under the rule of reason.\n\nFailed candidates. Implied acceptance language — element 7 failed: safely neutralized by ordinary verification without reconstructing the policy.\nFailed candidates. Written campaign authorization — element 7 failed: safely neutralized by B’s objective, preannounced promotion provision.\nFailed candidates. Per se characterization — element 2 failed: rejection does not change the recommendation or implementation.\nFailed candidates. Answer A’s more detailed advertising and checkout definitions — element 2 failed: Answer B already limits enforcement to public advertisements and excludes confidential sales.\nFailed candidates. Answer A’s written dealer-refusal and adoption memoranda — element 3 failed: no concrete different client consequence is established from B’s omission.\nFailed candidates. Answer A’s additional exceptions, cure period, and audit details — element 3 failed: no record-supported harm or degraded protection follows from B’s simpler objective schedule.\nFailed candidates. Answer A’s service metrics, alternatives analysis, and 12-month review — element 6 failed: the record does not show that their omission would likely change present conduct or outcome.\nFailed candidates. Answer A’s more detailed complaint-verification documentation — element 2 failed: both answers require independent monitoring and prohibit complaint-driven assurances or disclosures.\n\nHard stop. The required sentence cannot be completed with a concrete, record-supported consequence after ordinary verification.",
  "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"
    ]
  }
}