{
  "question": "q63",
  "model_1": "Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL",
  "model_2": "claude-opus-5",
  "answer_a_was": "Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL",
  "answer_b_was": "claude-opus-5",
  "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": 10022,
    "completion_tokens": 2411,
    "total_tokens": 12433,
    "cost": 0.13496375,
    "is_byok": false,
    "prompt_tokens_details": {
      "cached_tokens": 0,
      "cache_write_tokens": 10019,
      "audio_tokens": 0,
      "video_tokens": 0
    },
    "cost_details": {
      "upstream_inference_cost": 0.13496375,
      "upstream_inference_prompt_cost": 0.06263375,
      "upstream_inference_completions_cost": 0.07233
    },
    "completion_tokens_details": {
      "reasoning_tokens": 2063,
      "image_tokens": 0,
      "audio_tokens": 0
    }
  },
  "eval_prompt_sha256": "7e58b951cb86e4deba3b60fd01e9b9bd247ebe9883e1c9e43b24acffb1fd4667",
  "report": "TIE, FUNCTIONALLY EQUIVALENT.\n\nBasis. Both answers place Fathom on the same material path: treat January 2, 2023 as the negligence pivot, regard contract and fraud as timely on the supplied record, and obtain targeted evidence of when Quarry Ridge received or learned the report’s findings before moving. Both recommend a negligence limitations motion only if discovery occurred by January 1, 2023.\n\n[A] rejected: “before or after January 2” as equivalent pivot wording — internally inconsistent with its repeated correct conclusion that receipt on January 2 is timely.\n[B] rejected: fraud discovery had to predate May 2, 2022 for untimeliness — tolling arithmetic contradicts that cutoff.\n[B] rejected: “after the holidays” ordinarily means on or after January 2 — record does not define that phrase.\n[B] rejected: possible interim reports, oral briefings, tort-only damages, pleading defects, punitive exposure, and contractual limitations — record lacks those facts and governing rules.\n\nFailed candidate: B’s broader discovery requests — concrete consequence failed; both obtain the dispositive discovery date, and no different client outcome is established.\nFailed candidate: B’s incorrect fraud cutoff — different conduct failed; both conclude fraud is timely and advise against a limitations motion on the present record.\nFailed candidate: B’s additional merits and damages strategy — record support failed; the supplied materials do not establish those defenses or exposures.\nFailed candidate: A’s isolated pivot phrasing — different conduct failed; its calculations and recommendation consistently apply the correct on-or-after-January-2 rule.\n\nHard stop. The required sentence cannot be completed with a concrete, record-supported difference in client outcome.",
  "judge_reasoning": "",
  "_public_record": {
    "type": "published record",
    "policy": "../../PUBLIC_RECORD_POLICY.md",
    "transformations": [
      "non-substantive machine metadata normalized",
      "published-record annotation added"
    ]
  }
}