{
  "question": "q60",
  "model_1": "DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS",
  "model_2": "Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL",
  "answer_a_was": "DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS",
  "answer_b_was": "Qwen3.8-27B-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": 7317,
    "completion_tokens": 1228,
    "total_tokens": 8545,
    "cost": 0.0825675,
    "is_byok": false,
    "prompt_tokens_details": {
      "cached_tokens": 0,
      "cache_write_tokens": 7314,
      "audio_tokens": 0,
      "video_tokens": 0
    },
    "cost_details": {
      "upstream_inference_cost": 0.0825675,
      "upstream_inference_prompt_cost": 0.0457275,
      "upstream_inference_completions_cost": 0.03684
    },
    "completion_tokens_details": {
      "reasoning_tokens": 1012,
      "image_tokens": 0,
      "audio_tokens": 0
    }
  },
  "eval_prompt_sha256": "7e58b951cb86e4deba3b60fd01e9b9bd247ebe9883e1c9e43b24acffb1fd4667",
  "report": "TIE, FUNCTIONALLY EQUIVALENT.\n\nBasis. Both answers direct counsel to file the fee motion by May 15, the substantive Rule-1 motion by May 29, and—because the May 8 motion does not toll—to file an appeal by June 1 absent tolling or by August 10 after the assumed July 10 disposition. Both recommend filing the notice after disposition and identify the same rights lost by missing each material deadline.\n\n[B] rejected: May 11 was the deadline for reconsideration and the May 8 motion was timely — record lacks the date of the evidentiary ruling that triggers the stated 10-day period.\n[A] rejected: the May 8 motion may help preserve the evidentiary issue — record lacks a rule establishing that preservation effect.\n\nFailed candidates. B’s added May 11 reconsideration deadline — record support failed.\nFailed candidates. A’s claimed preservation usefulness of the May 8 motion — different conduct failed.\n\nHard stop. It cannot be completed with a concrete, record-supported consequence.",
  "judge_reasoning": "**Evaluating candidate divergences**\n\nI need to judge and compare outputs in the exact format required. Candidate A mentions a May 8 reconsideration deadline while B adds a May 11 deadline, which could impact consequences. A thinks the May 8 date may help with evidentiary issues, which seems unsupported. They both seem to overstate the missing Rule 1 regarding district court relief. A points out that missing the May 29 deadline affects the appeal, and both suggest taking caution with protective notices before June 1.**Analyzing deadlines and support**\n\nCandidate B's calculation of the local reconsideration deadline for May 11 seems off. The rule states it should be within 10 days, but they assume the judgment date of May 1 without considering the actual evidentiary ruling date, which isn't provided. There’s no way to calculate the deadline without that ruling date. B claims it appears timely based on May 1, but this isn't valid. Candidate A's comment about preserving evidentiary issues lacks support and could mislead as it uses \"may\" instead of a definitive action. Overall, B's approach fails the neutralization test.**Assessing usefulness and conduct**\n\nI’m considering the usefulness of the record support and the difference in conduct. There's a concern that Candidate B introduces a fake deadline while claiming it has been met. The verification points out that the evidentiary ruling date is missing, so I would reject this to maintain the same position as Candidate A. A only mentioned filing on May 8 without claiming timeliness; it's a tie in verdict. I need two to four sentences to clarify the basis and ensure that there are no headers in the output, as the format specifies no headers.",
  "_public_record": {
    "type": "published record",
    "policy": "../../PUBLIC_RECORD_POLICY.md",
    "transformations": [
      "non-substantive machine metadata normalized",
      "published-record annotation added"
    ]
  }
}