{
  "question": "q57",
  "model_1": "Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL",
  "model_2": "claude-opus-5",
  "answer_a_was": "claude-opus-5",
  "answer_b_was": "Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL",
  "verdict_code": "A",
  "winner": "claude-opus-5",
  "judge_model": "openai/gpt-5.6-sol",
  "server_model": "openai/gpt-5.6-sol",
  "provider": "OpenAI",
  "finish_reason": "stop",
  "usage": {
    "prompt_tokens": 7917,
    "completion_tokens": 2967,
    "total_tokens": 10884,
    "cost": 0.1384875,
    "is_byok": false,
    "prompt_tokens_details": {
      "cached_tokens": 0,
      "cache_write_tokens": 7914,
      "audio_tokens": 0,
      "video_tokens": 0
    },
    "cost_details": {
      "upstream_inference_cost": 0.1384875,
      "upstream_inference_prompt_cost": 0.0494775,
      "upstream_inference_completions_cost": 0.08901
    },
    "completion_tokens_details": {
      "reasoning_tokens": 2252,
      "image_tokens": 0,
      "audio_tokens": 0
    }
  },
  "eval_prompt_sha256": "7e58b951cb86e4deba3b60fd01e9b9bd247ebe9883e1c9e43b24acffb1fd4667",
  "provenance_date": "2026-08-08",
  "report": "ANSWER A IS MATERIALLY BETTER.\n\nBasis: Answer A directs StreamLedger to use the remaining 21 days to create and file an authenticated evidentiary record supporting its certification opposition even if deferral is denied. Answer B instead directs filing on Day 10 and identifies only the prior discovery request as an attachment, leaving the court without specified company declarations establishing the enrollment variations, payment data, scripts, and queue performance. That difference materially affects whether StreamLedger can oppose immediate certification with evidence rather than attorney argument.\n\nProof (winner verdicts only).\nExact difference: Answer A requires five specified declarations and supporting exhibits; Answer B’s filing sequence omits development or submission of that company evidence.\nDifferent conduct: Counsel following A authenticates and submits StreamLedger’s records by Day 21; counsel following B files on Day 10 with the discovery request but no identified evidentiary submissions.\nConcrete consequence: If deferral is denied, A leaves StreamLedger with an evidence-supported opposition, while B leaves material certification facts unsupported in the filed record, degrading StreamLedger’s ability to prevent certification.\nRecord support: Rule 7 requires evidence, the opposition is due in 21 days, and StreamLedger controls records concerning interfaces, scripts, payments, and queue performance.\nMaterial magnitude: Certification determines potential aggregate treatment of 62,400 fee transactions totaling approximately $496,000 before deductions.\nLikelihood: Because deferral is discretionary and plaintiffs already filed their motion, competent counsel would prepare a complete evidentiary opposition rather than assume discovery relief will be granted.\nNo safe neutralization by ordinary verification: Supplying the omitted declarations, reconciliations, exhibits, and analyses would require counsel to build the evidentiary record that Answer B failed to specify.\n\n[B] rejected: desktop customers “actively unchecked a box” — record says the enrollment box was initially unchecked.\n[A] rejected: the desktop cohort is categorically subject to a “Rule 5 bar” — record lacks proof that every customer assented under an enforceable term.\n[B] rejected: all three representatives are presently inadequate — record identifies no adequacy conflict, and missing proof of standing or typicality does not itself establish inadequacy.\n[B] rejected: “Default Denial of Certification” is the prescribed response if plaintiffs admit having no records — governing rules provide denial for failure of proof, not a default procedure.\n\nFailed candidate: Different treatment of Chen, Vale, and Morgan — concrete-consequence element failed because both answers seek present denial and targeted production concerning their status.\nFailed candidate: Exact discovery categories — different-conduct element failed because Answer B incorporates the previously served request containing the broader categories.\nFailed candidate: Proposed subclasses and issue classes — concrete-consequence element failed because the record does not establish whether either fallback would be accepted or harm StreamLedger.\nFailed candidate: Desktop-checkbox characterization — no-safe-neutralization element failed because the factual mistake is immediately contradicted by the record.\nFailed candidate: Damages analysis — different-conduct element failed because both answers require deductions for refunds and chargebacks and individualized treatment of employer payments.\nFailed candidate: Broad stay versus targeted discovery — different-conduct element failed because both answers reject the six-month stay and seek targeted production.\n\nHard stop: Because Answer B omitted preparation and submission of StreamLedger’s available certification evidence, the reader would likely file the opposition on Day 10 with only the discovery request instead of using the available 21 days to submit authenticated company records and declarations, causing StreamLedger to face an immediate certification ruling on a materially weaker evidentiary record.",
  "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"
    ]
  }
}