{
  "question": "q57",
  "model_1": "Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL",
  "model_2": "claude-opus-5",
  "answer_a_was": "Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL",
  "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": 13192,
    "completion_tokens": 1416,
    "total_tokens": 14608,
    "cost": 0.12492625,
    "is_byok": false,
    "prompt_tokens_details": {
      "cached_tokens": 0,
      "cache_write_tokens": 13189,
      "audio_tokens": 0,
      "video_tokens": 0
    },
    "cost_details": {
      "upstream_inference_cost": 0.12492625,
      "upstream_inference_prompt_cost": 0.08244625,
      "upstream_inference_completions_cost": 0.04248
    },
    "completion_tokens_details": {
      "reasoning_tokens": 1034,
      "image_tokens": 0,
      "audio_tokens": 0
    }
  },
  "eval_prompt_sha256": "7e58b951cb86e4deba3b60fd01e9b9bd247ebe9883e1c9e43b24acffb1fd4667",
  "report": "TIE, FUNCTIONALLY EQUIVALENT.\n\nBasis. Both answers direct StreamLedger to seek prompt, targeted production and limited deferral while preparing and timely filing a present-record opposition, rejecting a broad six-month stay and preserving narrower subclass or issue-class arguments. Their differences in emphasis, scheduling, and internal preparation do not demonstrate a different filing outcome or concrete consequence to StreamLedger.\n\n[B] rejected: “terms versions across 36 months” — record lacks evidence of changing terms versions.\n[B] rejected: StreamLedger “has already run” a claims-administered refund program — record establishes refunds, not such a program.\n[A] rejected: mobile logs may show whether Chen opened the linked explanation — record lacks evidence that link-access logs exist.\n[A] rejected: plaintiffs should produce an explanation of StreamLedger’s “CB-R” code — internally inconsistent with the code being in StreamLedger’s ledger and with the proposed self-production of corresponding records.\n\nFailed candidates. Denial-first versus deferral-first framing — different conduct failed because both answers recommend filing the targeted motion and preserving a timely opposition seeking present-record denial.\nFailed candidates. B’s additional internal evidence-building steps — concrete consequence failed because the record does not show that A’s reader would omit ordinary preparation or lose any argument.\nFailed candidates. Ten-to-fourteen-day production schedule versus a 45–60-day deferral — concrete consequence failed because both preserve the 21-day deadline and no deadline loss or strategic harm is established.\nFailed candidates. Different issue-class formulations — likelihood failed because both treat subclasses or issue certification only as a narrow fallback after representative and evidentiary defects are addressed.\nFailed candidates. Unsupported terms-version, refund-program, and link-log assertions — no safe neutralization failed because ordinary record verification rejects them without changing the recommended course.\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"
    ]
  }
}