{
  "question": "q60",
  "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": "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": 5911,
    "completion_tokens": 1272,
    "total_tokens": 7183,
    "cost": 0.0751,
    "is_byok": false,
    "prompt_tokens_details": {
      "cached_tokens": 0,
      "cache_write_tokens": 5908,
      "audio_tokens": 0,
      "video_tokens": 0
    },
    "cost_details": {
      "upstream_inference_cost": 0.0751,
      "upstream_inference_prompt_cost": 0.03694,
      "upstream_inference_completions_cost": 0.03816
    },
    "completion_tokens_details": {
      "reasoning_tokens": 1006,
      "image_tokens": 0,
      "audio_tokens": 0
    }
  },
  "eval_prompt_sha256": "7e58b951cb86e4deba3b60fd01e9b9bd247ebe9883e1c9e43b24acffb1fd4667",
  "provenance_date": "2026-08-08",
  "report": "TIE, FUNCTIONALLY EQUIVALENT.\n\nBasis. Both readers timely file the fee motion by May 15 and the substantive rule-1 motion by May 29, disregard the May 8 motion for tolling, and preserve the appeal by June 1 absent tolling or by August 10 after a July 10 disposition. Answer A’s additional protective notice creates no demonstrated difference in the client’s appellate rights because both plans ultimately require a proper post-disposition notice.\n\n[A] rejected: supplementation of an incomplete fee application necessarily preserves the fee claim — record lacks a rule governing supplementation.\n[A] rejected: excusable-neglect relief may rescue an untimely fee motion — record lacks any such exception.\n[A] rejected: an adverse fee order has a separate 30-day appeal clock — record lacks rules governing appeals from fee orders.\n\nFailed candidates. Protective notice plus later notice versus later notice alone — concrete consequence failed.\nFailed candidates. Answer A’s additional filing and record-preservation instructions — likelihood of a materially different outcome failed.\nFailed candidates. Answer B’s statement that the May 8 motion may aid preservation — record support failed.\nFailed candidates. Differences in default-consequence detail — different conduct failed.\n\nHard stop. The required 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"
    ]
  }
}