{
  "question": "q58",
  "model_1": "Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL",
  "model_2": "claude-opus-5",
  "answer_a_was": "Qwen3.5-27B-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": 5892,
    "completion_tokens": 1724,
    "total_tokens": 7616,
    "cost": 0.08854125,
    "is_byok": false,
    "prompt_tokens_details": {
      "cached_tokens": 0,
      "cache_write_tokens": 5889,
      "audio_tokens": 0,
      "video_tokens": 0
    },
    "cost_details": {
      "upstream_inference_cost": 0.08854125,
      "upstream_inference_prompt_cost": 0.03682125,
      "upstream_inference_completions_cost": 0.05172
    },
    "completion_tokens_details": {
      "reasoning_tokens": 1394,
      "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 distribution, correct the omitted $270,000 agency payment, state the $3,500,000 net fund, use $350 per point and $2,100 for Ortiz, narrow the release, preserve the tax and procedure paragraphs, and proceed without a renewed period because nothing was distributed. Their remaining differences do not demonstrate materially different client conduct or consequences.\n\n[A] rejected: October 26, 2023 memorandum date — record lacks any current date or year.\n[B] rejected: withholding applies only to the estimated wage portion — record lacks the governing withholding rules and makes payroll treatment subject to final determination.\n[B] rejected: optional exclusion and objection mechanics — record lacks those procedural requirements.\n[B] rejected: possible need to extend deadlines if transmission occurs too near October 2 — record states the dates are correct and lacks facts showing inadequate response time.\n\nFailed candidates. A states litigation costs as $110,000 rather than “up to $110,000” — concrete consequence failed because the record does not establish lower actual costs or a resulting different exclusion or objection decision.\nFailed candidates. A’s unsupported memorandum date — no-safe-neutralization failed.\nFailed candidates. B’s additional withholding statement — no-safe-neutralization failed.\nFailed candidates. B’s optional procedural insert — no-safe-neutralization failed.\nFailed candidates. B’s deadline caveat — record support failed.\nFailed candidates. B’s additional detail about allocation mechanics and possible increases — different conduct failed.\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"
    ],
    "retained": [
      "substantive report",
      "verdict code",
      "winner mapping",
      "A/B assignment",
      "model and judge identifiers",
      "finish reason",
      "token counts",
      "provenance date"
    ]
  }
}