{
  "question": "q59",
  "model_1": "DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS",
  "model_2": "claude-opus-5",
  "answer_a_was": "claude-opus-5",
  "answer_b_was": "DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS",
  "verdict_code": "B",
  "winner": "DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS",
  "judge_model": "openai/gpt-5.6-sol",
  "server_model": "openai/gpt-5.6-sol",
  "provider": "OpenAI",
  "finish_reason": "stop",
  "usage": {
    "prompt_tokens": 3802,
    "completion_tokens": 1491,
    "total_tokens": 5293,
    "cost": 0.06848875,
    "is_byok": false,
    "prompt_tokens_details": {
      "cached_tokens": 0,
      "cache_write_tokens": 3799,
      "audio_tokens": 0,
      "video_tokens": 0
    },
    "cost_details": {
      "upstream_inference_cost": 0.06848875,
      "upstream_inference_prompt_cost": 0.02375875,
      "upstream_inference_completions_cost": 0.04473
    },
    "completion_tokens_details": {
      "reasoning_tokens": 1034,
      "image_tokens": 0,
      "audio_tokens": 0
    }
  },
  "eval_prompt_sha256": "7e58b951cb86e4deba3b60fd01e9b9bd247ebe9883e1c9e43b24acffb1fd4667",
  "provenance_date": "2026-08-08",
  "report": "ANSWER B IS MATERIALLY BETTER.\n\nBasis. Answer A gives the correct ultimate recommendation but is visibly truncated before supplying any review-standard, risk, or expected-value analysis. A competent reader could not approve the $150,000 allocation from Answer A alone without reconstructing the omitted analysis, while Answer B establishes that appealing A and B yields $1,092,500 in expected incremental value and that appealing C destroys $260,000 in expected value.\n\nProof (winner verdicts only).\nExact difference. Answer A stops after “Expected incremental value of the recommended appeal is appro” and omits all supporting calculations and risk analysis; Answer B supplies them.\nDifferent conduct. Answer A’s reader would withhold approval pending a rebuilt analysis; Answer B’s reader can authorize Issues A and B and omit C.\nConcrete consequence. Withholding approval leaves Helix unable to pursue the supported A-and-B package, which carries $1,092,500 in expected incremental value.\nRecord support. The supplied probabilities, recoveries, costs, and existing judgment produce EVs of A +$540,000, B +$552,500, and C −$260,000.\nMaterial magnitude. The unsupported decision concerns the full $150,000 budget and more than $1 million in expected client value.\nLikelihood. The board expressly requested an expected-value ranking, and a rational professional would not authorize the full budget from a visibly incomplete assertion.\nNo safe neutralization by ordinary verification. Reaching Answer B’s supported recommendation requires deriving every expected-value calculation and comparing the feasible packages, which is corrective work.\n\nFailed candidates. Omitted review standards and reversal consequences — different conduct failed independently because Answer A states the same issue selection.\nFailed candidates. Omitted explanation of why reversal probability is not controlling — different conduct failed independently because the stated recommendation already rejects Issue C.\nFailed candidates. Omitted enumeration of alternative budget combinations — different conduct failed independently because Answer A correctly states that A and B fit the cap.\n\nHard stop. Because Answer A omitted the expected-value and risk analysis supporting its recommendation, the reader would likely withhold authorization instead of authorizing Issues A and B, causing the client to forgo a package with $1,092,500 in expected incremental value.",
  "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"
    ]
  }
}