{
  "question": "q56",
  "model_1": "DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS",
  "model_2": "Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL",
  "answer_a_was": "DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS",
  "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": 11896,
    "completion_tokens": 2645,
    "total_tokens": 14541,
    "cost": 0.15369625,
    "is_byok": false,
    "prompt_tokens_details": {
      "cached_tokens": 0,
      "cache_write_tokens": 11893,
      "audio_tokens": 0,
      "video_tokens": 0
    },
    "cost_details": {
      "upstream_inference_cost": 0.15369625,
      "upstream_inference_prompt_cost": 0.07434625,
      "upstream_inference_completions_cost": 0.07935
    },
    "completion_tokens_details": {
      "reasoning_tokens": 2325,
      "image_tokens": 0,
      "audio_tokens": 0
    }
  },
  "eval_prompt_sha256": "7e58b951cb86e4deba3b60fd01e9b9bd247ebe9883e1c9e43b24acffb1fd4667",
  "report": "TIE, FUNCTIONALLY EQUIVALENT.\n\nBasis. Both answers lead Rookwell to concede recognition of the $6.4 million compensatory award, oppose the severable $1.2 million public-law surcharge, and negotiate secured payment before execution. Their differing stay and negotiation tactics do not establish a materially different client outcome on this record.\n\n[A] rejected: full opposition risks an adverse inference — record lacks any rule or fact supporting such an inference.\n[B] rejected: the translation issue provides settlement leverage — record lacks evidence that the notation materially affects damages or Sereva’s negotiating position.\n[B] rejected: Sereva bears the burden to prove the compensatory portion and severability — internally inconsistent with Answer B’s later allocation and the Act’s assignment of refusal-ground burdens to Rookwell.\n\nFailed candidates.\nGeneral stay versus limited protection — concrete consequence failed; the record does not establish that a broader stay would be granted or leave Rookwell materially better after required security.\nUsing the translation issue in negotiations — concrete consequence failed; no resulting discount or altered payment terms are supported.\nPreserving notice, fraud, and systemic objections as alternatives — concrete consequence failed; neither answer identifies evidence making those defenses likely to alter recognition.\nBurden allocation for compensation and severability — different conduct failed; the amounts and their separate character are undisputed, and both answers seek the same order.\nCharacterization of full-opposition risks — different conduct failed; both answers advise against opposing recognition in full.\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"
    ]
  }
}