{
  "question": "q55",
  "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": "BOTH_INADEQUATE",
  "winner": "BOTH_INADEQUATE",
  "judge_model": "openai/gpt-5.6-sol",
  "server_model": "openai/gpt-5.6-sol",
  "provider": "OpenAI",
  "finish_reason": "stop",
  "usage": {
    "prompt_tokens": 7017,
    "completion_tokens": 1938,
    "total_tokens": 8955,
    "cost": 0.1019925,
    "is_byok": false,
    "prompt_tokens_details": {
      "cached_tokens": 0,
      "cache_write_tokens": 7014,
      "audio_tokens": 0,
      "video_tokens": 0
    },
    "cost_details": {
      "upstream_inference_cost": 0.1019925,
      "upstream_inference_prompt_cost": 0.0438525,
      "upstream_inference_completions_cost": 0.05814
    },
    "completion_tokens_details": {
      "reasoning_tokens": 1552,
      "image_tokens": 0,
      "audio_tokens": 0
    }
  },
  "eval_prompt_sha256": "7e58b951cb86e4deba3b60fd01e9b9bd247ebe9883e1c9e43b24acffb1fd4667",
  "provenance_date": "2026-08-08",
  "report": "BOTH MATERIALLY INADEQUATE.\n\nBasis. Both answers predict that Bracken law likely governs customer nonsolicitation, even though the record identifies no fundamental Bracken policy overriding the otherwise enforceable Arcadia choice on that issue; ordinary differences in reasonableness standards expressly do not suffice. That shared error would cause Arcadian to surrender, and Elise to discount, potential Arcadia-law protection extending beyond six months and the three personally served customers, materially distorting injunction requests and settlement value.\n\n[A] rejected: preliminary relief is “likely available” from downloading plus unspecified risk — record lacks interim-relief standards and evidence of threatened use or disclosure.\n[B] rejected: forensic examination, Beacon sequestration, and a clean-team order are likely available — record lacks remedial standards and evidence that Beacon received or threatened to use the files.\n[B] rejected: Arcadian would have to pay meaningful garden leave to obtain a 12-month industry bar — record lacks any rule making garden leave legally relevant.\n\nFailed candidates. B’s recognition that Arcadia law could govern nonsolicitation — different conduct failed because B ultimately predicts Bracken law and recommends the same six-month, personally-served-customer limit as A.\nFailed candidates. B’s distinction between solicitation and accepting unsolicited business — likelihood failed because the record does not indicate that any customer will approach Elise independently.\nFailed candidates. The answers’ differing interim-relief detail — record support failed because the supplied law establishes enforceable confidentiality duties but not the availability or prerequisites of the listed procedures.\nFailed candidates. A’s stronger assertion that an injunction is likely — no safe neutralization failed as a winner candidate because ordinary verification rejects that unsupported likelihood assessment before action.\n\nHard stop. It cannot be completed for Answer A over Answer B or Answer B over Answer A; both instead direct the reader toward the same materially unsupported Bracken-law limitation on customer nonsolicitation.",
  "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"
    ]
  }
}