{
  "question": "q59",
  "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": "B",
  "winner": "Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL",
  "judge_model": "openai/gpt-5.6-sol",
  "server_model": "openai/gpt-5.6-sol",
  "provider": "OpenAI",
  "finish_reason": "stop",
  "usage": {
    "prompt_tokens": 4682,
    "completion_tokens": 2331,
    "total_tokens": 7013,
    "cost": 0.09918875,
    "is_byok": false,
    "prompt_tokens_details": {
      "cached_tokens": 0,
      "cache_write_tokens": 4679,
      "audio_tokens": 0,
      "video_tokens": 0
    },
    "cost_details": {
      "upstream_inference_cost": 0.09918875,
      "upstream_inference_prompt_cost": 0.02925875,
      "upstream_inference_completions_cost": 0.06993
    },
    "completion_tokens_details": {
      "reasoning_tokens": 1868,
      "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 bottom-line selection but omits the requested expected-value calculations and supporting analysis, leaving the board unable to verify that spending the full $150,000 on A and B maximizes client value. Answer B supplies that decision-critical analysis, supporting authorization of A and B and preservation of their combined $1,092,500 expected incremental value while avoiding Issue C’s negative $260,000 value.\n\nExact difference. Answer A ends after asserting “Appeal Issues A and B. Omit Issue C” and provides none of the required calculations, standards, ranking, or risk analysis.\nDifferent conduct. The reader of A cannot safely approve the allocation without reconstructing the analysis; the reader of B can approve A and B and omit C.\nConcrete consequence. Without a supportable authorization, Helix likely forgoes A and B’s combined $1,092,500 expected incremental value; B supports capturing that value without risking the existing judgment through C.\nRecord support. The supplied probabilities, recoveries, remand costs, and briefing costs yield EIVs of $540,000 for A, $552,500 for B, and negative $260,000 for C.\nMaterial magnitude. The omitted analysis governs a $150,000 expenditure and more than $1 million in expected net financial benefit.\nLikelihood. The board expressly requested expected-value ranking to resolve disagreement between the chair and CFO, making an unsupported conclusion insufficient for a rational approval decision.\nNo safe neutralization by ordinary verification. Verifying A’s recommendation requires independently deriving all three expected values and the budget optimization—the analysis A was required to provide.\n\nB rejected: intermediate Issue C total of $1,870,000 — internally inconsistent with its own recognition that the appellate cost was deducted only in the no-reversal branch.\n\nIssue B’s “post-conviction appeal” caption — Different conduct failed.\nIssue B’s superseded $1,870,000 intermediate calculation — Different conduct failed.\n\nHard stop. Because Answer A omitted the expected-value and risk analysis supporting its recommendation, the reader would likely withhold approval of A and B instead of authorizing them, causing Helix to forgo $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"
    ]
  }
}