{
  "question": "q63",
  "model_1": "Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL",
  "model_2": "claude-opus-5",
  "answer_a_was": "claude-opus-5",
  "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": 7539,
    "completion_tokens": 1995,
    "total_tokens": 9534,
    "cost": 0.106965,
    "is_byok": false,
    "prompt_tokens_details": {
      "cached_tokens": 0,
      "cache_write_tokens": 7536,
      "audio_tokens": 0,
      "video_tokens": 0
    },
    "cost_details": {
      "upstream_inference_cost": 0.106965,
      "upstream_inference_prompt_cost": 0.047115,
      "upstream_inference_completions_cost": 0.05985
    },
    "completion_tokens_details": {
      "reasoning_tokens": 1536,
      "image_tokens": 0,
      "audio_tokens": 0
    }
  },
  "eval_prompt_sha256": "7e58b951cb86e4deba3b60fd01e9b9bd247ebe9883e1c9e43b24acffb1fd4667",
  "provenance_date": "2026-08-08",
  "report": "TIE, FUNCTIONALLY EQUIVALENT.\n\nBasis. Both answers place Fathom on the same materially correct path: the September email does not trigger discovery, January 2, 2023 is the negligence pivot date, and Fathom should obtain the report-delivery date before moving. Both also correctly treat the contract claim and, on the present record, the fraud claim as timely.\n\n[B] rejected: December 27, 2022 as the earliest supported discovery date — record does not define “after the holidays,” while the report is dated December 20.\n[B] rejected: January 10, 2025 plus 120 days equals May 9, 2025 — calendar calculation yields May 10, 2025.\n[A] rejected: fraud must have been discovered before May 2, 2022 to be untimely — calculation omits the applicable 120-day tolling period.\n[B] rejected: fraud discovered in late 2022 could be barred by May 2, 2025 — the three-year period and 120-day tolling establish otherwise.\n[A] rejected: “after the holidays” ordinarily means January 2, 2023 or later — record supplies no defined meaning.\n[B] rejected: tolling is irrelevant to the contract period because it was unexpired — Rule 6 suspends periods precisely when they remain unexpired.\n\nFailed candidates. Earliest discovery range: concrete consequence failed; both demand proof of the actual receipt date before moving.\nFailed candidates. January 10 adjusted-deadline arithmetic: concrete consequence failed; May 2 is timely under either May 9 or May 10.\nFailed candidates. Fraud cutoff calculations: different conduct failed; neither answer recommends a present fraud-limitations motion.\nFailed candidates. Contract tolling characterization: different conduct failed; both correctly conclude the May 2 complaint was timely.\nFailed candidates. Answer B’s omission of drafts or oral preliminary findings from its express demands: record support failed; the record does not establish that any such communication occurred.\nFailed candidates. Interpretation of “after the holidays”: different conduct failed; both treat the statement as insufficient and seek exact delivery evidence.\n\nHard stop. The sentence cannot be completed with a concrete, record-supported consequence.",
  "judge_reasoning": "**Considering professional responsibility**\n\nI'm pondering whether the primary recommendation focuses on negligence and whether it's timely. Would a professional act differently in this situation? There could be waste in discovering client materials that might affect their legal position. Although, on the surface, there seems to be no proven concrete consequence. It seems A is suggesting that the contract tolling extends to December 13, 2025. I'm trying to evaluate the implications of all this.",
  "_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"
    ]
  }
}