{
  "question": "q61",
  "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": "A",
  "winner": "Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL",
  "judge_model": "openai/gpt-5.6-sol",
  "server_model": "openai/gpt-5.6-sol",
  "provider": "OpenAI",
  "finish_reason": "stop",
  "usage": {
    "prompt_tokens": 4881,
    "completion_tokens": 1515,
    "total_tokens": 6396,
    "cost": 0.0759525,
    "is_byok": false,
    "prompt_tokens_details": {
      "cached_tokens": 0,
      "cache_write_tokens": 4878,
      "audio_tokens": 0,
      "video_tokens": 0
    },
    "cost_details": {
      "upstream_inference_cost": 0.0759525,
      "upstream_inference_prompt_cost": 0.0305025,
      "upstream_inference_completions_cost": 0.04545
    },
    "completion_tokens_details": {
      "reasoning_tokens": 1034,
      "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 provides a substantially actionable cure plan: treat Mosaic as covered, stop its screening use pending compliance, correct the applicant notice, and obtain an employer-specific audit. Answer B ends before analyzing the duties or recommending any action, leaving its reader without an answer-supported response to the 30-day cure letter and exposing Cinder Peak to continued violations and per-applicant penalties.\n\nProof (winner verdicts only).\nExact difference: Answer A analyzes all assigned issues and recommends concrete cure measures; Answer B stops during its executive summary and supplies no cure-period action.\nDifferent conduct: Answer A’s reader would halt or restrict Mosaic and begin notice and audit compliance; Answer B’s reader has no answer-supported cure plan.\nConcrete consequence: Acting on Answer A can prevent uncovered post-cure use affecting additional applicants and the resulting per-applicant penalties; Answer B leaves that exposure unaddressed.\nRecord support: Sections 4, 5, and 10 require compliant pre-collection notice, an employer-specific audit, and cure within 30 days before penalties may be sought.\nMaterial magnitude: Continued noncompliance can affect every subsequently screened applicant and generate penalties per affected applicant.\nLikelihood: A rational professional facing today’s cure letter would act on Answer A’s express compliance recommendations rather than continue without a plan.\nNo safe neutralization by ordinary verification: Supplying the omitted statutory analysis and cure plan for Answer B would require reconstructing nearly the entire requested memorandum.\n\n[A] rejected: suppressing only the “advance/do not advance” recommendation “removes” material influence — record shows Mosaic would still generate evaluative narrative outputs concerning applicant characteristics.\n\nFailed candidates. Answer A’s recommendation to initiate rather than expressly complete the audit within 30 days — Different conduct not established because the memorandum repeatedly requires securing the audit and achieving compliance.\nFailed candidates. Answer A’s unsupported memorandum date — Concrete consequence failed.\nFailed candidates. Answer A’s characterization of fair notice and legislative intent as the strongest coverage argument — Different conduct failed because its ultimate coverage and cure advice remains unchanged.\n\nHard stop. Because Answer B omitted the requested statutory analysis and concrete cure-period advice, the reader would likely lack an answer-supported compliance response instead of stopping or restricting Mosaic and completing notice and audit measures, causing Cinder Peak to remain exposed to post-cure violations and 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"
    ]
  }
}