{
  "question": "q57",
  "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": 12512,
    "completion_tokens": 1775,
    "total_tokens": 14287,
    "cost": 0.13144625,
    "is_byok": false,
    "prompt_tokens_details": {
      "cached_tokens": 0,
      "cache_write_tokens": 12509,
      "audio_tokens": 0,
      "video_tokens": 0
    },
    "cost_details": {
      "upstream_inference_cost": 0.13144625,
      "upstream_inference_prompt_cost": 0.07819625,
      "upstream_inference_completions_cost": 0.05325
    },
    "completion_tokens_details": {
      "reasoning_tokens": 1416,
      "image_tokens": 0,
      "audio_tokens": 0
    }
  },
  "eval_prompt_sha256": "7e58b951cb86e4deba3b60fd01e9b9bd247ebe9883e1c9e43b24acffb1fd4667",
  "report": "TIE, FUNCTIONALLY EQUIVALENT.\n\nBasis. Both answers place StreamLedger on the same material path: promptly seek targeted named-plaintiff production, reject a broad six-month stay, preserve a timely present-record certification opposition, and request supplemental consideration after production. Their differences in sequencing and detail do not establish a concrete change to StreamLedger’s procedural or legal position.\n\n[B] rejected: “Desktop users actively unchecked a box” — record says the fee option was presented as a separate unchecked box.\n[B] rejected: “Do not brief the merits yet” — internally inconsistent with the instruction to file the certification opposition concurrently.\n[B] rejected: “Default Denial of Certification” — record lacks such a procedural mechanism.\n[B] rejected: October 26, 2025 memorandum date — record does not supply that date.\n[B] rejected: gendered references to Jae Morgan — record lacks that information.\n\nFailed candidate: A seeks deferral before conditionally filing the opposition, while B files both concurrently — concrete consequence failed because no supplied rule shows either sequence forfeits arguments or changes the ruling.\nFailed candidate: B’s desktop-checkbox error — no-safe-neutralization failed because ordinary record verification reveals the error before action.\nFailed candidate: A provides fuller adequacy, subclass, and document analysis — different conduct failed because both recommend the same targeted discovery and certification response.\nFailed candidate: B proposes “Default Denial” if records are unavailable — record support failed, and both otherwise seek denial for failure of proof.\nFailed candidate: differing treatment of weekday benefits and possible offsets — different conduct failed because both require a theory-matched model excluding refunds, chargebacks, and nonpersonal losses.\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"
    ]
  }
}