{
  "question": "q62",
  "model_1": "DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS",
  "model_2": "Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL",
  "answer_a_was": "DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS",
  "answer_b_was": "Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL",
  "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": 7108,
    "completion_tokens": 1075,
    "total_tokens": 8183,
    "cost": 0.07667125,
    "is_byok": false,
    "prompt_tokens_details": {
      "cached_tokens": 0,
      "cache_write_tokens": 7105,
      "audio_tokens": 0,
      "video_tokens": 0
    },
    "cost_details": {
      "upstream_inference_cost": 0.07667125,
      "upstream_inference_prompt_cost": 0.04442125,
      "upstream_inference_completions_cost": 0.03225
    },
    "completion_tokens_details": {
      "reasoning_tokens": 793,
      "image_tokens": 0,
      "audio_tokens": 0
    }
  },
  "eval_prompt_sha256": "7e58b951cb86e4deba3b60fd01e9b9bd247ebe9883e1c9e43b24acffb1fd4667",
  "provenance_date": "2026-08-08",
  "report": "TIE, FUNCTIONALLY EQUIVALENT.\n\nBasis. Both answers direct Northwind to recognize $400 in viable Arlo claims and $1,000 in viable Drea claims, while defeating Bina’s renewal, Cato’s cancellation, and Cato’s renewal claims. They therefore produce the same material litigation path and $1,400 statutory-damages exposure; their differing settlement figures are unsupported by facts concerning costs, risk tolerance, fees, or likely acceptance.\n\n[B] rejected: settle for $1,250 to avoid costs and precedent — record lacks litigation costs, precedent risk, settlement preferences, and acceptance probability.\n[B] rejected: Northwind “correctly applied transition rules” — record contradicts this by stating Northwind advocates one version for each agreement’s entire life.\n[B] rejected: insist on settlement indemnification — record lacks any basis for indemnification or facts showing it is available or necessary.\n\nFailed candidates. $1,250 versus approximately $1,400 settlement recommendation — record support failed.\nFailed candidates. Characterization of Northwind’s transition position — no safe neutralization failed; the internal contradiction is rejected before action.\nFailed candidates. Indemnification recommendation — likelihood failed.\nFailed candidates. Differences in formatting, detail, and cautionary language — different conduct failed.\n\nHard stop. The required sentence cannot be completed with a concrete, record-supported consequence.",
  "judge_reasoning": "**Considering reporting format**\n\nI'm looking into a global cap resistance above 1400, but it seems unsupported due to associated costs and risks. Also, there's a figure of 1250, but it doesn't look like there's a material winner here. I need to focus on the output report, probably just one screen. A verdict needs to be given in the first part, with a basis of 2-4 sentences. I wonder if neutral lines should be included without a header for \"Basis.\"",
  "_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"
    ]
  }
}