{
  "question": "q55",
  "model_1": "DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS",
  "model_2": "Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL",
  "answer_a_was": "DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS",
  "answer_b_was": "Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL",
  "verdict_code": "B",
  "winner": "Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL",
  "judge_model": "openai/gpt-5.6-sol",
  "server_model": "openai/gpt-5.6-sol",
  "provider": "OpenAI",
  "finish_reason": "stop",
  "usage": {
    "prompt_tokens": 10713,
    "completion_tokens": 2127,
    "total_tokens": 12840,
    "cost": 0.1307625,
    "is_byok": false,
    "prompt_tokens_details": {
      "cached_tokens": 0,
      "cache_write_tokens": 10710,
      "audio_tokens": 0,
      "video_tokens": 0
    },
    "cost_details": {
      "upstream_inference_cost": 0.1307625,
      "upstream_inference_prompt_cost": 0.0669525,
      "upstream_inference_completions_cost": 0.06381
    },
    "completion_tokens_details": {
      "reasoning_tokens": 1552,
      "image_tokens": 0,
      "audio_tokens": 0
    }
  },
  "eval_prompt_sha256": "7e58b951cb86e4deba3b60fd01e9b9bd247ebe9883e1c9e43b24acffb1fd4667",
  "report": "ANSWER B IS MATERIALLY BETTER.\n\nBasis. Answer A predicts Bracken law for customer nonsolicitation and recommends seeking or accepting only six months of protection for personally served customers, despite the absence of a stated fundamental Bracken policy permitting displacement of the Arcadia choice on that issue. Answer B correctly preserves the stronger Arcadia-law position, allowing Arcadian to seek a reasonable 12-month restriction while retaining Bracken’s six-month rule as the alternative.\n\nExact difference. Answer A states that “the safer prediction” is Bracken law for nonsolicitation; Answer B concludes that Arcadia law is more likely because no fundamental-policy exception is established for that separate issue.\nDifferent conduct. Following A, Arcadian seeks and bargains for only six months covering three customers; following B, it pleads and preserves a reasonable 12-month Arcadia-law restriction.\nConcrete consequence. Arcadian otherwise relinquishes up to six additional months of contractual customer protection, correspondingly expanding Elise’s ability to solicit those customers.\nRecord support. The agreement selects Arcadia law and imposes a 12-month nonsolicitation clause; Arcadia has substantial contacts, while the rules identify only Bracken’s noncompete ban—not its nonsolicitation limits—as fundamental policy.\nMaterial magnitude. Six months of protection for customer relationships is a concrete commercial and settlement interest.\nLikelihood. A rational professional would preserve the likely governing-law claim rather than voluntarily cap requested relief before adjudication or settlement.\nNo safe neutralization by ordinary verification. Correcting A requires reapplying the issue-specific choice-of-law framework and deriving the governing-law conclusion it misstated.\n\n[A] rejected: garden leave would likely be required for a 12-month industry bar — record lacks any rule making payment relevant to enforceability.\n[B] rejected: damages, profits, or an accounting listed as interim relief — record lacks facts establishing present misuse or recoverable monetary relief.\n\nFailed candidates. Noncompete analysis — different conduct failed; both lead to Bracken law and invalidation.\nFailed candidates. Confidentiality and trade-secret analysis — concrete consequence failed; both preserve substantially identical no-use, return, and forensic relief.\nFailed candidates. Interim-relief formulations — material magnitude failed; both reject an employment bar based merely on assumed disclosure.\nFailed candidates. Inbound customer acceptance distinction — record support failed; the facts do not establish that any customer will approach Elise without solicitation.\nFailed candidates. Arcadia-law narrowing descriptions — likelihood failed; neither answer establishes the precise scope a court would ultimately select.\n\nHard stop. Because Answer A omitted that Bracken’s nonsolicitation limit was not identified as fundamental policy, the reader would likely seek or accept only six months of protection instead of preserving a reasonable 12-month Arcadia-law restriction, causing Arcadian to lose up to six months of potential protection for covered customer relationships.",
  "judge_reasoning": "",
  "_public_record": {
    "type": "published record",
    "policy": "../../PUBLIC_RECORD_POLICY.md",
    "transformations": [
      "non-substantive machine metadata normalized",
      "published-record annotation added"
    ]
  }
}