{
  "question": "q56",
  "model_1": "DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS",
  "model_2": "claude-opus-5",
  "answer_a_was": "DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS",
  "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": 8787,
    "completion_tokens": 861,
    "total_tokens": 9648,
    "cost": 0.080745,
    "is_byok": false,
    "prompt_tokens_details": {
      "cached_tokens": 0,
      "cache_write_tokens": 8784,
      "audio_tokens": 0,
      "video_tokens": 0
    },
    "cost_details": {
      "upstream_inference_cost": 0.080745,
      "upstream_inference_prompt_cost": 0.054915,
      "upstream_inference_completions_cost": 0.02583
    },
    "completion_tokens_details": {
      "reasoning_tokens": 516,
      "image_tokens": 0,
      "audio_tokens": 0
    }
  },
  "eval_prompt_sha256": "7e58b951cb86e4deba3b60fd01e9b9bd247ebe9883e1c9e43b24acffb1fd4667",
  "provenance_date": "2026-08-08",
  "report": "TIE, FUNCTIONALLY EQUIVALENT.\n\nBasis. Both answers lead Rookwell to concede recognition of the $6.4 million compensatory award, oppose and sever the $1.2 million public-law surcharge, avoid a full-recognition challenge or general stay, and negotiate secured repayment before execution. Their additional differences do not establish a materially different client action or outcome.\n\n[B] rejected: contesting notice risks privilege waiver, bad-faith findings, fee shifting, or sanctions — record lacks applicable privilege, fee, or sanctions rules.\n[B] rejected: garnishment would damage hospital relationships beyond the judgment amount — record lacks evidence of those operational consequences.\n[B] rejected: the counterclaims may have been dismissed without prejudice — record lacks their disposition.\n[B] rejected: Sereva must establish finality through specified certified documents and a Varen-law declaration — record already stipulates enforceability and lacks those evidentiary requirements.\n\nFailed candidates. B’s additional warnings against weak defenses — different conduct failed; both answers recommend abandoning those defenses.\nFailed candidates. B’s counterclaim and ancillary investigations — concrete consequence failed; the record shows no resulting offset, claim preservation, insurance recovery, or enforcement change.\nFailed candidates. B’s public-policy alternative against the surcharge — different conduct failed; both answers obtain mandatory severance under § 8.\nFailed candidates. Different stay and collateral details — concrete consequence failed; both answers recommend only surcharge-focused protection and secured repayment.\nFailed candidates. A’s burden shorthand for personal jurisdiction and the surcharge — likelihood failed; both answers apply the supplied facts correctly and reach the same recognition result.\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"
    ]
  }
}