{
  "question": "q56",
  "model_1": "DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS",
  "model_2": "Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL",
  "answer_a_was": "DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS",
  "answer_b_was": "Qwen3.5-27B-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": 7749,
    "completion_tokens": 1336,
    "total_tokens": 9085,
    "cost": 0.0885075,
    "is_byok": false,
    "prompt_tokens_details": {
      "cached_tokens": 0,
      "cache_write_tokens": 7746,
      "audio_tokens": 0,
      "video_tokens": 0
    },
    "cost_details": {
      "upstream_inference_cost": 0.0885075,
      "upstream_inference_prompt_cost": 0.0484275,
      "upstream_inference_completions_cost": 0.04008
    },
    "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 direct Rookwell to accept recognition of the final $6.4 million compensatory award, seek severance of the nonrecognizable $1.2 million surcharge, avoid a full opposition, and negotiate secured payment terms before execution. Their differences do not establish any materially different legal, financial, or operational outcome.\n\n[B] rejected: memorandum date of October 26, 2023 — record contradicts the 2025–2026 litigation dates.\n[B] rejected: deputy general counsel “instructed the board” not to retain counsel — record says the board had already refused further fees.\n[B] rejected: full opposition risks costs, sanctions, and reputational harm — record lacks an applicable sanctions or cost-shifting rule.\n[A] rejected: full opposition risks an adverse inference — record lacks an applicable adverse-inference rule.\n\nFailed candidates.\nIncorrect memorandum date — different conduct failed.\nCharacterization of the deputy general counsel’s role — different conduct failed.\nAssertions about sanctions, costs, reputation, or adverse inference — different conduct failed.\nB’s proposed 24–36-month term and letter-of-credit or escrow security versus A’s more general secured plan — concrete consequence failed.\nB’s suggestion to secure the $6.4 million while seeking a surcharge-only stay versus A’s limited-stay formulation — concrete consequence failed.\n\nHard stop. The required 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"
    ]
  }
}