{
  "question": "q56",
  "model_1": "Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL",
  "model_2": "Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL",
  "answer_a_was": "Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL",
  "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": 10949,
    "completion_tokens": 2389,
    "total_tokens": 13338,
    "cost": 0.1400975,
    "is_byok": false,
    "prompt_tokens_details": {
      "cached_tokens": 0,
      "cache_write_tokens": 10946,
      "audio_tokens": 0,
      "video_tokens": 0
    },
    "cost_details": {
      "upstream_inference_cost": 0.1400975,
      "upstream_inference_prompt_cost": 0.0684275,
      "upstream_inference_completions_cost": 0.07167
    },
    "completion_tokens_details": {
      "reasoning_tokens": 1934,
      "image_tokens": 0,
      "audio_tokens": 0
    }
  },
  "eval_prompt_sha256": "7e58b951cb86e4deba3b60fd01e9b9bd247ebe9883e1c9e43b24acffb1fd4667",
  "report": "TIE, FUNCTIONALLY EQUIVALENT.\n\nBasis. Both answers direct Rookwell to accept likely recognition of the $6.4 million compensatory award, defeat recognition of the severable $1.2 million public-law surcharge, avoid relying on the unsupported jurisdictional, notice, systemic-bias, fraud, and merits arguments, and negotiate secured payment terms. Their differences do not establish a materially different outcome on the supplied record.\n\n[A] rejected: full opposition could harm Rookwell’s credibility — record lacks any basis for that consequence.\n[A] rejected: the translation issue provides settlement leverage — record lacks evidence of its effect on damages or Sereva’s negotiating position.\n[B] rejected: full opposition risks costs or sanctions — record lacks State Alder cost or sanctions rules.\n[B] rejected: State Alder courts disfavor Rookwell’s supposed forum shopping — record lacks evidence of that practice.\n[B] rejected: memorandum date of October 26, 2023 — record contradicts it with events beginning in 2025.\n[B] rejected: Rookwell was “estopped” from challenging jurisdiction and “waived” its right to appear — record lacks those rules; Sections 4 and 7 independently resolve the issues.\n\nFailed candidates.\nStay scope and proposed security — concrete consequence failed; the record does not show that seeking a broader short stay rather than securing the $6.4 million would alter Rookwell’s operational or financial position.\nConceding finality and jurisdiction versus admitting the $6.4 million liability — concrete consequence failed; no viable preserved defense or lost right is identified.\nUsing the translation issue in negotiations — likelihood failed; no evidence shows Sereva would change terms because of it.\nDifferent payment periods and collateral forms — record support failed; the record contains no cash-flow, financing, or collateral facts establishing which proposal benefits Rookwell.\nOmission of separate discussion of foreign-law error and unused Section 5 grounds — different conduct failed; neither answer recommends merits review or reliance on those grounds.\nUnsupported sanctions, credibility, estoppel, waiver, and memorandum date statements — different conduct failed after ordinary verification rejects them.\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"
    ]
  }
}