{
  "question": "q55",
  "model_1": "DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS",
  "model_2": "claude-opus-5",
  "answer_a_was": "DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS",
  "answer_b_was": "claude-opus-5",
  "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": 8095,
    "completion_tokens": 1907,
    "total_tokens": 10002,
    "cost": 0.1078,
    "is_byok": false,
    "prompt_tokens_details": {
      "cached_tokens": 0,
      "cache_write_tokens": 8092,
      "audio_tokens": 0,
      "video_tokens": 0
    },
    "cost_details": {
      "upstream_inference_cost": 0.1078,
      "upstream_inference_prompt_cost": 0.05059,
      "upstream_inference_completions_cost": 0.05721
    },
    "completion_tokens_details": {
      "reasoning_tokens": 1552,
      "image_tokens": 0,
      "audio_tokens": 0
    }
  },
  "eval_prompt_sha256": "7e58b951cb86e4deba3b60fd01e9b9bd247ebe9883e1c9e43b24acffb1fd4667",
  "provenance_date": "2026-08-08",
  "report": "TIE, FUNCTIONALLY EQUIVALENT.\n\nBasis. Both answers lead the parties to the same material path: Bracken law likely voids the noncompete, while Arcadian may pursue limited customer nonsolicitation and confidentiality or trade-secret relief based on the downloaded files. Their differences do not establish different likely conduct producing a concrete, record-supported consequence.\n\n[B] rejected: Elise bears the burden on all three displacement elements — record lacks a burden-allocation rule.\n[A] rejected: meaningful garden leave could support a 12-month industry bar — record lacks any exception beyond a qualifying business sale.\n[B] rejected: Arcadia’s 12-month term is presumptively acceptable — record states only that reasonable restrictions are enforceable.\n[B] rejected: an adverse ruling would become published precedent affecting Arcadian’s entire Bracken workforce — record lacks publication and workforce facts.\n\nFailed candidate: governing law for nonsolicitation — different conduct failed because both recommend the same practical six-month, personally-served-customer position.\nFailed candidate: solicitation versus accepting business from the three managed customers — record support failed because the facts do not state how those customers would reach Elise.\nFailed candidate: scope of Arcadia-law narrowing — likelihood failed because both predict Bracken law governs the actual noncompete.\nFailed candidate: differing interim-relief details — record support failed because no procedural standards establish entitlement to the proposed forensic, firewall, bond, or clean-team terms.\nFailed candidate: garden-leave or future sale-based restructuring advice — likelihood failed because neither changes the current dispute’s recommended course.\nFailed candidate: precedent, credibility, and publication strategy — concrete consequence failed because the record establishes none.\n\nHard stop. It 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"
    ]
  }
}