{
  "question": "q63",
  "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": 5729,
    "completion_tokens": 2272,
    "total_tokens": 8001,
    "cost": 0.1039625,
    "is_byok": false,
    "prompt_tokens_details": {
      "cached_tokens": 0,
      "cache_write_tokens": 5726,
      "audio_tokens": 0,
      "video_tokens": 0
    },
    "cost_details": {
      "upstream_inference_cost": 0.1039625,
      "upstream_inference_prompt_cost": 0.0358025,
      "upstream_inference_completions_cost": 0.06816
    },
    "completion_tokens_details": {
      "reasoning_tokens": 1890,
      "image_tokens": 0,
      "audio_tokens": 0
    }
  },
  "eval_prompt_sha256": "7e58b951cb86e4deba3b60fd01e9b9bd247ebe9883e1c9e43b24acffb1fd4667",
  "provenance_date": "2026-08-08",
  "report": "TIE, FUNCTIONALLY EQUIVALENT.\n\nBasis. Both answers direct Fathom to preserve the defense, obtain the report’s exact receipt date, and move against professional negligence only if receipt preceded January 2, 2023. Both treat the contract and fraud claims as timely on the present record, so their discrepancies do not change the client’s material course or outcome.\n\n[B] rejected: December 27, 2022 as the earliest supported receipt date — record lacks a definite meaning or evidentiary foundation for counsel’s phrase “after the holidays.”\n[B] rejected: January 10, 2023 plus 120 days equals May 9, 2025 — internally inconsistent with calendar-day addition, which produces May 10, 2025.\n[B] rejected: tolling is irrelevant to the contract deadline — cited rule says every period unexpired on November 1, 2024 is suspended for 120 days.\n[B] rejected: late-2022 fraud discovery could make the May 2, 2025 filing untimely — cited three-year period and 120-day suspension establish otherwise.\n\nFailed candidates. Earliest supported discovery date: different conduct failed; both demand the exact receipt date before moving.\nFailed candidates. Latest adjusted negligence deadline: different conduct failed; both conclude a January 10 receipt makes the complaint timely.\nFailed candidates. Contract tolling treatment: different conduct failed; both decline a contract-limitations motion because the complaint preceded even the untolled deadline.\nFailed candidates. Fraud limitations uncertainty: different conduct failed after ordinary verification; both ultimately treat fraud as timely on this record.\nFailed candidates. B’s December 26–January 10 RFP window: concrete consequence failed; B also directs a subpoena and deposition to establish the exact delivery date.\n\nHard stop. The sentence cannot be completed with a concrete, record-supported consequence.",
  "judge_reasoning": "**Identifying calculation differences**\n\nI need to judge according to the format of the calculations. A says that Jan 10 + 120 equals May 10, so let’s check that. Adding 120 days to Jan 10 calculates to May 10 correctly, while B says it’s May 9, which doesn’t match. Then I work through other dates: Dec 27 + 120 leads to April 26, which checks out. Dec 20 + 120 equals April 19 correctly, as well. The question involves comparing the earliest and latest based on evidence — but some statements, like \"after the holidays,\" are ambiguous.**Analyzing contract timing**\n\nThe assignment clearly states that the earliest and latest dates are supported by Exhibits 2 and 3, which leads back to Dec 20-Jan 10. A seems to be correct about the material facts, as both parties reference the same timing for delivery.\n\nB's contract mentions tolling is irrelevant and doesn't properly calculate its effect. The assignment asks about the 120-day period and whether it started before any deadlines. A claims there's an adjusted contract from Dec 13, which looks right. However, with no material action taken by B, it could become an issue. Both sides need to show they acted in a timely manner, especially if there's a delayed discovery claim.**Assessing delivery and timelines**\n\nThe complaint mentions a report that shows a loss but doesn’t specify a date. It could be dated Dec 20, which might suggest its relevance. The current record is lacking the exact date of delivery, and the expected recommendation points to targeted discovery. \n\nI’m wondering if A’s accurate deadline endpoint is materially better than B’s misstep with the Jan 10 date. If delivery was on Jan 10, both parties would be timely and have no divergence in action. B seems to misinterpret the discovery range, but the evidence doesn't change.",
  "_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"
    ]
  }
}