{
  "question": "q55",
  "model_1": "Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL",
  "model_2": "Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL",
  "answer_a_was": "Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL",
  "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": 10103,
    "completion_tokens": 1560,
    "total_tokens": 11663,
    "cost": 0.10994,
    "is_byok": false,
    "prompt_tokens_details": {
      "cached_tokens": 0,
      "cache_write_tokens": 10100,
      "audio_tokens": 0,
      "video_tokens": 0
    },
    "cost_details": {
      "upstream_inference_cost": 0.10994,
      "upstream_inference_prompt_cost": 0.06314,
      "upstream_inference_completions_cost": 0.0468
    },
    "completion_tokens_details": {
      "reasoning_tokens": 1034,
      "image_tokens": 0,
      "audio_tokens": 0
    }
  },
  "eval_prompt_sha256": "7e58b951cb86e4deba3b60fd01e9b9bd247ebe9883e1c9e43b24acffb1fd4667",
  "report": "ANSWER B IS MATERIALLY BETTER.\n\nBasis. Answer A incorrectly treats customer nonsolicitation as governed by Bracken’s noncompete policy, leading it to recommend conceding a six-month restriction limited to three customers. Answer B correctly separates that issue: because no fundamental Bracken policy concerning nonsolicitation is supplied, the Arcadia choice likely controls, materially preserving Arcadian’s ability to seek the contractual 12-month protection.\n\nProof (winner verdicts only).\nExact difference. A says nonsolicitation is “Likely Bracken Law”; B says it is separately analyzed and “Arcadia law is more likely to govern.”\nDifferent conduct. A’s reader would offer or accept six months covering only three personally served customers; B’s reader would initially seek enforcement under Arcadia law for up to the contractual 12 months.\nConcrete consequence. Arcadian may retain protection against solicitation of the three managed customers during months seven through twelve rather than surrendering it, while Elise faces the corresponding restraint.\nRecord support. Rules 1, 4, and 5 enforce the Arcadia choice issue-specifically unless fundamental policy supports displacement; the record declares only Bracken’s noncompete ban fundamental and says ordinary reasonableness differences do not suffice.\nMaterial magnitude. Six additional months of protection for active customer relationships materially changes both parties’ legal and commercial positions.\nLikelihood. Elise expressly plans to serve the three customers, so a rational professional would litigate and negotiate the duration rather than concede Bracken’s six-month limit.\nNo safe neutralization by ordinary verification. Reaching the Arcadia-law position requires reconstructing the issue-specific exception analysis that A omitted, not merely checking a citation or fact.\n\nFailed candidates. Breadth beyond personally served customers — concrete consequence failed because the record does not establish that Arcadia law would restrain solicitation of customers Elise never served.\nConfidentiality governing law — different conduct failed because both answers preserve confidentiality and trade-secret claims under either state’s law.\nInterim-relief phrasing and scope — different conduct failed because both readers would seek targeted no-use, no-disclosure, return, or deletion relief rather than a confidentiality-based employment ban.\nStrongest Arcadia-choice argument — concrete consequence failed because both answers reach the same noncompete result despite presenting that argument differently.\n\nHard stop. Because Answer A omitted the absence of any stated fundamental Bracken policy for nonsolicitation, the reader would likely concede a six-month, three-customer restriction instead of seeking Arcadia-law enforcement for up to 12 months, causing Arcadian to lose six months of potential customer protection.",
  "judge_reasoning": "",
  "_public_record": {
    "type": "published record",
    "policy": "../../PUBLIC_RECORD_POLICY.md",
    "transformations": [
      "non-substantive machine metadata normalized",
      "published-record annotation added"
    ]
  }
}