{
  "question": "q57",
  "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": 9044,
    "completion_tokens": 2881,
    "total_tokens": 11925,
    "cost": 0.14295125,
    "is_byok": false,
    "prompt_tokens_details": {
      "cached_tokens": 0,
      "cache_write_tokens": 9041,
      "audio_tokens": 0,
      "video_tokens": 0
    },
    "cost_details": {
      "upstream_inference_cost": 0.14295125,
      "upstream_inference_prompt_cost": 0.05652125,
      "upstream_inference_completions_cost": 0.08643
    },
    "completion_tokens_details": {
      "reasoning_tokens": 2429,
      "image_tokens": 0,
      "audio_tokens": 0
    }
  },
  "eval_prompt_sha256": "7e58b951cb86e4deba3b60fd01e9b9bd247ebe9883e1c9e43b24acffb1fd4667",
  "provenance_date": "2026-08-08",
  "report": "TIE, FUNCTIONALLY EQUIVALENT.\n\nBasis. Both answers put StreamLedger on the same material path: promptly seek targeted production and deferral, file a timely alternative opposition challenging the representatives, pathwide predominance, and damages model, and reject a broad six-month stay. Their differences in emphasis, proposed fallback classes, and record-building detail do not establish a different, directionally better outcome for StreamLedger.\n\n[A] rejected: call-center representatives may have departed from the six scripts — record lacks evidence of actual departures.\n[B] rejected: assent artifacts and terms versions changed across the 36-month period — record lacks evidence of version changes.\n[B] rejected: StreamLedger already operated a claims-administered refund program that is a feasible superior alternative — record establishes refunds but not such a program or its feasibility.\n[B] rejected: nondisclosure damages may require price-premium or conjoint analysis — supplied rules do not impose either methodology.\n[B] rejected: fee shifting and evidentiary preclusion are available remedies — supplied rules do not establish their availability.\n\nFailed candidate: Primary denial versus primary deferral — concrete consequence failed because both answers direct counsel to seek both forms of relief and file the opposition by the deadline.\nFailed candidate: Different assessments of Chen, Vale, Morgan, and adequacy — different conduct failed because both challenge certification on the present evidence and seek the same representative files.\nFailed candidate: B’s affirmative issue-class/mobile-legacy fallback versus A’s more guarded subclass discussion — likelihood failed because the record does not show that the court would certify the invited fallback or that offering it changes the result.\nFailed candidate: B’s additional internal investigation and declaration plan — concrete consequence failed because the record does not establish what that work would reveal or how it would change the ruling.\nFailed candidate: Different damages and superiority formulations — record support failed because the proposed refund-program alternative and specialized valuation methodology are not established by the supplied record.\nFailed candidate: Differences in requested production categories and scheduling details — material magnitude failed because both seek prompt, targeted evidence concerning enrollment, assent, payment, chargeback, and reimbursement before certification is decided.\n\nHard stop. The sentence cannot be completed with a concrete, record-supported consequence that distinguishes the answers.",
  "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"
    ]
  }
}