{
  "question": "q64",
  "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": 7736,
    "completion_tokens": 1357,
    "total_tokens": 9093,
    "cost": 0.08905625,
    "is_byok": false,
    "prompt_tokens_details": {
      "cached_tokens": 0,
      "cache_write_tokens": 7733,
      "audio_tokens": 0,
      "video_tokens": 0
    },
    "cost_details": {
      "upstream_inference_cost": 0.08905625,
      "upstream_inference_prompt_cost": 0.04834625,
      "upstream_inference_completions_cost": 0.04071
    },
    "completion_tokens_details": {
      "reasoning_tokens": 1034,
      "image_tokens": 0,
      "audio_tokens": 0
    }
  },
  "eval_prompt_sha256": "7e58b951cb86e4deba3b60fd01e9b9bd247ebe9883e1c9e43b24acffb1fd4667",
  "provenance_date": "2026-08-08",
  "report": "TIE, FUNCTIONALLY EQUIVALENT.\n\nBasis. Both answers put Verdant on the same material path: treat notice as required no later than October 3, obtain Oakline’s agency and transmission records, challenge both forms of prejudice, preserve the broker claim, and pursue coverage litigation if necessary. Their differences do not establish a concrete, record-supported change in coverage, settlement, or liability outcome.\n\n[B] rejected: November 15 to December 2 was “nearly two months” — internally inconsistent with the stated dates and B’s immediately following “three-week delay.”\n\nFailed candidates. September 18 trigger — different conduct failed because both answers find notice required by October 3 and late thereafter.\nFailed candidates. Later independent-broker transmission treated like December 2 — concrete consequence failed because the record does not establish that the insurer probably would have accepted the expired demand or that coverage would be lost.\nFailed candidates. Settlement-demand valuation — different conduct failed because both answers require proof that the insurer probably would have acted on the $225,000 demand.\nFailed candidates. Immediate litigation versus targeted discovery — different conduct failed because both ultimately call for broker discovery through coverage litigation if Oakline does not produce voluntarily.\nFailed candidates. Additional broker-preservation and E&O steps in A — record support failed because no limitation deadline or other fact shows that B’s approach would lose the broker claim.\nFailed candidates. B’s conditional reference to preserving the valve — concrete consequence failed because neither its preservation nor its absence is established.\n\nHard stop. The sentence cannot be completed with a concrete, record-supported consequence.",
  "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"
    ]
  }
}