{
  "question": "q61",
  "model_1": "DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS",
  "model_2": "claude-opus-5",
  "answer_a_was": "DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS",
  "answer_b_was": "claude-opus-5",
  "verdict_code": "A",
  "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": 5454,
    "completion_tokens": 951,
    "total_tokens": 6405,
    "cost": 0.06261375,
    "is_byok": false,
    "prompt_tokens_details": {
      "cached_tokens": 0,
      "cache_write_tokens": 5451,
      "audio_tokens": 0,
      "video_tokens": 0
    },
    "cost_details": {
      "upstream_inference_cost": 0.06261375,
      "upstream_inference_prompt_cost": 0.03408375,
      "upstream_inference_completions_cost": 0.02853
    },
    "completion_tokens_details": {
      "reasoning_tokens": 516,
      "image_tokens": 0,
      "audio_tokens": 0
    }
  },
  "eval_prompt_sha256": "7e58b951cb86e4deba3b60fd01e9b9bd247ebe9883e1c9e43b24acffb1fd4667",
  "provenance_date": "2026-08-08",
  "report": "ANSWER A IS MATERIALLY BETTER.\n\nBasis. Answer A directs Cinder Peak to pause Mosaic’s evaluative functions, provide compliant notice, obtain an employer-specific audit, and report its cure within 30 days. Answer B ends after an initial coverage observation and supplies no completed analysis or cure plan, leaving the company without an answer-supported path to prevent continued noncompliance and per-applicant penalties after the cure period.\n\nProof (winner verdicts only).\nExact difference. Answer B omits the required analysis of human override, exemption, retroactivity, statutory duties, penalties, competing arguments, and—critically—the concrete 30-day cure action that Answer A provides.\nDifferent conduct. Following Answer A, Cinder Peak pauses evaluative use and begins the notice, audit, and regulator-response steps; relying only on Answer B, it has no specified complete cure to implement.\nConcrete consequence. Continued uncovered use after day 30 may expose Cinder Peak to penalties for each affected applicant, while Answer A’s course prevents that continued-use exposure.\nRecord support. The Act requires advance notice and an employer-specific audit, rejects a general vendor test, and permits per-applicant penalties for continued use after the 30-day cure period; Cinder Peak presently satisfies neither duty.\nMaterial magnitude. Potential penalties across ongoing applicants and the legality of the screening process materially affect Cinder Peak’s financial, legal, and operational position.\nLikelihood. A rational professional facing today’s cure letter would implement Answer A’s specified pause and compliance measures, while Answer B does not furnish the requested operational decision or cure steps.\nNo safe neutralization by ordinary verification. Supplying Answer B’s missing statutory analysis and cure plan would require reconstructing the memorandum rather than checking its stated facts or conclusions.\n\nFailed candidates. None.\n\nHard stop. Because Answer B omitted a completed compliance analysis and 30-day cure plan, the reader would likely lack a complete cure to implement instead of pausing evaluative use, correcting notice, obtaining an employer-specific audit, and responding to the regulator, causing the client to experience continued noncompliance and potential per-applicant penalties after the cure period.",
  "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"
    ]
  }
}