{
  "question": "q55",
  "model_1": "Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL",
  "model_2": "claude-opus-5",
  "answer_a_was": "claude-opus-5",
  "answer_b_was": "Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL",
  "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": 11181,
    "completion_tokens": 1358,
    "total_tokens": 12539,
    "cost": 0.1106175,
    "is_byok": false,
    "prompt_tokens_details": {
      "cached_tokens": 0,
      "cache_write_tokens": 11178,
      "audio_tokens": 0,
      "video_tokens": 0
    },
    "cost_details": {
      "upstream_inference_cost": 0.1106175,
      "upstream_inference_prompt_cost": 0.0698775,
      "upstream_inference_completions_cost": 0.04074
    },
    "completion_tokens_details": {
      "reasoning_tokens": 1034,
      "image_tokens": 0,
      "audio_tokens": 0
    }
  },
  "eval_prompt_sha256": "7e58b951cb86e4deba3b60fd01e9b9bd247ebe9883e1c9e43b24acffb1fd4667",
  "report": "TIE, FUNCTIONALLY EQUIVALENT.\n\nBasis. Both answers lead the parties to the same material path: Bracken law likely voids the noncompete, nonsolicitation requires separate analysis and narrowing, and confidentiality relief should focus on the downloaded files rather than blocking Elise’s employment. Both support substantially the same immediate litigation measures and a settlement permitting the Beacon job while protecting personally served customers and confidential information.\n\n[A] rejected: Elise bears the burden on all three displacement elements — record lacks any rule allocating the burden of proof.\n[A] rejected: the Arcadia executive team was the team to whom Elise reported — record states only that the executive team is in Arcadia.\n[B] rejected: Elise downloaded the files while in Bracken — record does not identify where the download occurred.\n\nFailed candidates. Nonsolicitation governing-law emphasis and proposed duration — concrete consequence failed because both preserve the Arcadia-law argument, identify Bracken’s six-month alternative, and recommend negotiating a narrowed customer restriction.\nFailed candidates. Arcadia-law formulation of the narrowed noncompete — likelihood failed because Bracken law likely governs and both advise against relying on an employment bar.\nFailed candidates. Differences in forensic, firewall, and preservation details — different conduct failed because both recommend materially equivalent information-specific interim relief.\nFailed candidates. Answer A’s unsupported burden allocation — no safe neutralization failed because ordinary verification against the supplied rules removes it without changing the recommended conduct.\nFailed candidates. Unsupported download-location and reporting details — record support failed.\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"
    ]
  }
}