{
  "question": "q58",
  "model_1": "DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS",
  "model_2": "Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL",
  "answer_a_was": "Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL",
  "answer_b_was": "DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS",
  "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": 4547,
    "completion_tokens": 1669,
    "total_tokens": 6216,
    "cost": 0.078485,
    "is_byok": false,
    "prompt_tokens_details": {
      "cached_tokens": 0,
      "cache_write_tokens": 4544,
      "audio_tokens": 0,
      "video_tokens": 0
    },
    "cost_details": {
      "upstream_inference_cost": 0.078485,
      "upstream_inference_prompt_cost": 0.028415,
      "upstream_inference_completions_cost": 0.05007
    },
    "completion_tokens_details": {
      "reasoning_tokens": 1360,
      "image_tokens": 0,
      "audio_tokens": 0
    }
  },
  "eval_prompt_sha256": "7e58b951cb86e4deba3b60fd01e9b9bd247ebe9883e1c9e43b24acffb1fd4667",
  "provenance_date": "2026-08-08",
  "report": "TIE, FUNCTIONALLY EQUIVALENT.\n\nBasis. Both answers direct the administrator to stop transmission, add the omitted $270,000 agency payment, correct the net fund to $3,500,000, the point value to $350, and Maya Ortiz’s estimate to $2,100, and replace the overbroad release with the agreement’s claims and period. Both preserve the accurate tax and procedure provisions and correctly conclude that no renewed notice period is required because distribution has not occurred.\n\n[A] rejected: memorandum date of October 26, 2023 — record lacks any calendar date or year.\n[A] rejected: litigation costs stated as $110,000 rather than “up to $110,000” — record says costs are up to $110,000.\n\nFailed candidate: A’s unsupported date and instruction to use the existing deadlines — different conduct failed after ordinary verification against the record’s statement that the deadlines are correct.\nFailed candidate: A’s omission of “up to” before litigation costs — different conduct failed because ordinary verification directly supplies the stated cap and both calculations use the $110,000 maximum.\nFailed candidate: B’s added references to 6,200 members, three service awards, and specified reasons estimates may change — different conduct failed.\nFailed candidate: Differences in release phrasing — different conduct failed because both accurately limit the release to the same claims, factual predicate, exclusions, and covered period.\n\nHard stop. The sentence cannot be completed with a concrete, record-supported consequence.",
  "judge_reasoning": "**Evaluating divergence in submissions**\n\nI need to assess the submissions closely to identify any discrepancies. It seems that both candidates are fundamentally similar, yet Candidate A introduces an invented deadline of October 26, 2023, which contradicts existing deadlines of October 2 and a hearing on November 13. This inconsistency is critical because it appears unsupported. Candidate B, on the other hand, accurately describes costs as \"up to\" $110k, while Candidate A seems to misrepresent these figures. I'll need to ensure clarity in the submissions before proceeding.**Assessing accuracy and clarity**\n\nThe original notice proposed costs of $110k, and the user asks for corrections to preserve accuracy in deductions. I'm wondering if Candidate A is materially deficient compared to Candidate B, who seems more precise. A's language might mislead by suggesting fixed costs, but all deductions require approval per the agreement that says \"up to.\" The impact of this may not lead to different decisions. Both candidates address court approval for deductions but could inaccurately characterize agency payments. Ultimately, B offers clearer descriptions, while A may need refining.**Evaluating failed candidates**\n\nI'm noting that all failed candidates involve aspects like \"up to\" costs, specific awards, and changes in estimates. We might want to log not only the rejected dates but also details on the candidates that failed. The output says these failed candidates cover every divergence, which may require mentioning failed candidates for clarity. I think the date might be a neutralized point, with the first failure being \"No safe neutralization.\" I need to keep this concise and clear, limiting it to two to four sentences.",
  "_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"
    ]
  }
}