{
  "question": "q55",
  "model_1": "Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL",
  "model_2": "claude-opus-5",
  "answer_a_was": "Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL",
  "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": 7485,
    "completion_tokens": 1419,
    "total_tokens": 8904,
    "cost": 0.0893475,
    "is_byok": false,
    "prompt_tokens_details": {
      "cached_tokens": 0,
      "cache_write_tokens": 7482,
      "audio_tokens": 0,
      "video_tokens": 0
    },
    "cost_details": {
      "upstream_inference_cost": 0.0893475,
      "upstream_inference_prompt_cost": 0.0467775,
      "upstream_inference_completions_cost": 0.04257
    },
    "completion_tokens_details": {
      "reasoning_tokens": 1034,
      "image_tokens": 0,
      "audio_tokens": 0
    }
  },
  "eval_prompt_sha256": "7e58b951cb86e4deba3b60fd01e9b9bd247ebe9883e1c9e43b24acffb1fd4667",
  "provenance_date": "2026-08-08",
  "report": "TIE, FUNCTIONALLY EQUIVALENT.\n\nBasis. Both answers place the parties on the same material path: Arcadia has a substantial relationship, but Bracken law likely governs and voids the noncompete, while a six-month nonsolicitation limited to Elise’s three former customers and information-specific relief remain viable. Their differences do not establish a concrete change in litigation or settlement conduct supported by the supplied record.\n\n[B] rejected: Elise bears the burden on all three displacement elements — record lacks any burden-of-proof rule.\n[B] rejected: Arcadia law would likely narrow the covenant to specified roles, accounts, and pricing-data customers — record lacks facts or rules establishing those particular limits.\n[A] rejected: a preliminary injunction is likely available based on the download alone — record lacks preliminary-injunction standards.\n[B] rejected: forensic imaging, Beacon certifications, bonding, and related orders are available now on the download evidence alone — record lacks procedural and equitable-relief standards.\n[B] rejected: Bracken forbids an inevitable-disclosure theory or de facto-noncompete injunction — record lacks such a rule.\n\nFailed candidate: Different characterization of the law governing nonsolicitation — concrete consequence failed because both recommend the same six-month, three-customer restriction.\nFailed candidate: Arcadia-only geographic carve-back — different conduct failed because both ultimately reject an employment bar and focus relief on customers and confidential information.\nFailed candidate: Broader forensic and interim remedies in Answer B — record support failed because the governing standards for those remedies were not supplied.\nFailed candidate: Different settlement detail — likelihood failed because both converge on continued Beacon employment, limited nonsolicitation, and information protections.\nFailed candidate: Burden placed on Elise in Answer B — different conduct failed because it does not alter either answer’s predicted result or recommended posture.\n\nHard stop. The sentence 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"
    ]
  }
}