{
  "question": "q60",
  "model_1": "DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS",
  "model_2": "Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL",
  "answer_a_was": "DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS",
  "answer_b_was": "Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL",
  "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": 5283,
    "completion_tokens": 791,
    "total_tokens": 6074,
    "cost": 0.056745,
    "is_byok": false,
    "prompt_tokens_details": {
      "cached_tokens": 0,
      "cache_write_tokens": 5280,
      "audio_tokens": 0,
      "video_tokens": 0
    },
    "cost_details": {
      "upstream_inference_cost": 0.056745,
      "upstream_inference_prompt_cost": 0.033015,
      "upstream_inference_completions_cost": 0.02373
    },
    "completion_tokens_details": {
      "reasoning_tokens": 516,
      "image_tokens": 0,
      "audio_tokens": 0
    }
  },
  "eval_prompt_sha256": "7e58b951cb86e4deba3b60fd01e9b9bd247ebe9883e1c9e43b24acffb1fd4667",
  "provenance_date": "2026-08-08",
  "report": "TIE, FUNCTIONALLY EQUIVALENT.\nBasis. Both answers direct counsel to file the fee motion by May 15, the substantive rule-1 motion by May 29, and—after a July 10 disposition—the notice of appeal by August 10. They agree that the May 8 motion does not toll, that the untolled appeal deadline is June 1, and that filing the notice after disposition is safer; no demonstrated difference changes Marisol’s preservation path.\n[A] rejected: the May 8 motion “may be useful for preserving the evidentiary issue” — record lacks any rule establishing that preservation effect.\n[B] rejected: missing May 29 means “we cannot challenge the interest omission or witness exclusion” on appeal — record lacks rules governing appellate issue preservation or scope.\n[B] rejected: an untimely fee ruling “may not be revisited on appeal” — record lacks a rule governing appellate review of that ruling.\nFailed candidates. Protective notice caveat in A — likelihood failed.\nFailed candidates. Different descriptions of missed-deadline consequences — different conduct failed.\nFailed candidates. B’s “AND/OR” wording for rule-1 relief — different conduct failed because B’s stated strategy requests both forms of relief.\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"
    ]
  }
}