{
  "question": "q60",
  "model_1": "Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL",
  "model_2": "claude-opus-5",
  "answer_a_was": "Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL",
  "answer_b_was": "claude-opus-5",
  "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": 6096,
    "completion_tokens": 1386,
    "total_tokens": 7482,
    "cost": 0.07967625,
    "is_byok": false,
    "prompt_tokens_details": {
      "cached_tokens": 0,
      "cache_write_tokens": 6093,
      "audio_tokens": 0,
      "video_tokens": 0
    },
    "cost_details": {
      "upstream_inference_cost": 0.07967625,
      "upstream_inference_prompt_cost": 0.03809625,
      "upstream_inference_completions_cost": 0.04158
    },
    "completion_tokens_details": {
      "reasoning_tokens": 1034,
      "image_tokens": 0,
      "audio_tokens": 0
    }
  },
  "eval_prompt_sha256": "7e58b951cb86e4deba3b60fd01e9b9bd247ebe9883e1c9e43b24acffb1fd4667",
  "provenance_date": "2026-08-08",
  "report": "TIE, FUNCTIONALLY EQUIVALENT.\n\nBasis. Both answers direct counsel to file the fee motion by May 15, a substantively valid rule-1 motion by May 29, and a post-disposition notice of appeal by August 10, while correctly treating the May 8 motion as non-tolling. Following either plan preserves the same $185,000 fee claim, $42,000 interest request, new-trial request, and appellate rights.\n\n[B] rejected: May 11 deadline for the local reconsideration motion — record lacks the date of the evidentiary ruling from which the 10 days would run.\n[B] rejected: excusable-neglect relief may revive an untimely fee motion — record lacks an excusable-neglect rule.\n[B] rejected: reserving later supplementation necessarily preserves the fee claim — record lacks a supplementation rule.\n[B] rejected: a separate 30-day appeal period governs an adverse fee order — record lacks a rule governing appeals from fee orders.\n\nFailed candidates. Protective June 1 notice plus later notice versus only a later notice — concrete consequence failed because the record’s planned timely, substantively compliant rule-1 motion tolls the appeal period, and both answers require the safer post-disposition notice.\nFailed candidates. Answer A’s less precise description of direct appellate review after missing May 29 — different conduct failed because it still instructs counsel to appeal by June 1 if no tolling motion is filed.\nFailed candidates. Answer B’s earlier May 20 target and additional record-preservation steps — concrete consequence failed because both answers require timely, adequately grounded filings on the supplied facts.\n\nHard stop. It 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"
    ]
  }
}