{
  "question": "q61",
  "model_1": "DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS",
  "model_2": "Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL",
  "answer_a_was": "Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL",
  "answer_b_was": "DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS",
  "verdict_code": "B",
  "winner": "DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS",
  "judge_model": "openai/gpt-5.6-sol",
  "server_model": "openai/gpt-5.6-sol",
  "provider": "OpenAI",
  "finish_reason": "stop",
  "usage": {
    "prompt_tokens": 7657,
    "completion_tokens": 2576,
    "total_tokens": 10233,
    "cost": 0.1251325,
    "is_byok": false,
    "prompt_tokens_details": {
      "cached_tokens": 0,
      "cache_write_tokens": 7654,
      "audio_tokens": 0,
      "video_tokens": 0
    },
    "cost_details": {
      "upstream_inference_cost": 0.1251325,
      "upstream_inference_prompt_cost": 0.0478525,
      "upstream_inference_completions_cost": 0.07728
    },
    "completion_tokens_details": {
      "reasoning_tokens": 2070,
      "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 treats disabling only Mosaic’s binary recommendation as potentially removing coverage, while leaving its evaluative narrative operating; Answer B requires disabling both outputs and remaining paused until the employer-specific audit is complete. Following Answer A’s proposed modification could therefore leave Cinder Peak using an unaudited screening instrument after the cure period, exposing it to per-applicant penalties.\n\nExact difference: Answer A says stopping “advance/do not advance” recommendations “removes the argument that it ‘materially influences’ advancement,” but does not require disabling the evaluative narrative; Answer B requires disabling both.\nDifferent conduct: Under A, Cinder Peak may continue showing recruiters Mosaic’s narrative assessments while the audit is pending; under B, it limits Mosaic to recording/transcription until the audit is completed.\nConcrete consequence: Continued evaluative use after day 30 leaves Cinder Peak exposed to penalties for each affected applicant; B’s course avoids that continued violation.\nRecord support: Mosaic evaluates communication, adaptability, and customer orientation, provides that assessment to recruiters, and the Act covers any output materially influencing advancement while requiring an employer-specific audit before use.\nMaterial magnitude: The system processed 3,200 applicants in six months, and penalties may accrue per affected applicant.\nLikelihood: A expressly offers recommendation-only suppression as an alternative to pausing Mosaic, making continued narrative use a rational implementation of its advice.\nNo safe neutralization: Correcting A requires recognizing the narrative as an independently evaluative output and redesigning the proposed cure to disable it—analysis and action A did not supply.\n\n[A] rejected: memorandum date of October 26, 2023 — record lacks any calendar date beyond “today.”\nFailed candidate: Different formulations of the strongest company argument — different conduct failed.\nFailed candidate: Answer A’s recruiter-training revision, absent from B — concrete consequence failed because both answers require pausing evaluative reliance.\nFailed candidate: Answer B’s advice concerning existing outputs for pending applicants — record support failed because the record identifies no pending applications.\nFailed candidate: Answer A’s shorter illustrative list of notice characteristics — likelihood failed because it directs Cinder Peak to disclose the characteristics evaluated rather than expressly limiting disclosure to those examples.\nHard stop. Because Answer A omitted disabling Mosaic’s evaluative narrative, the reader would likely continue using that narrative while awaiting an audit instead of limiting Mosaic to clerical functions, causing Cinder Peak to remain in violation after the cure period and face per-applicant penalties.",
  "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"
    ]
  }
}