{
  "question": "q64",
  "model_1": "DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS",
  "model_2": "Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL",
  "answer_a_was": "DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS",
  "answer_b_was": "Qwen3.8-27B-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": 12217,
    "completion_tokens": 1913,
    "total_tokens": 14130,
    "cost": 0.1337425,
    "is_byok": false,
    "prompt_tokens_details": {
      "cached_tokens": 0,
      "cache_write_tokens": 12214,
      "audio_tokens": 0,
      "video_tokens": 0
    },
    "cost_details": {
      "upstream_inference_cost": 0.1337425,
      "upstream_inference_prompt_cost": 0.0763525,
      "upstream_inference_completions_cost": 0.05739
    },
    "completion_tokens_details": {
      "reasoning_tokens": 1552,
      "image_tokens": 0,
      "audio_tokens": 0
    }
  },
  "eval_prompt_sha256": "7e58b951cb86e4deba3b60fd01e9b9bd247ebe9883e1c9e43b24acffb1fd4667",
  "report": "TIE, FUNCTIONALLY EQUIVALENT.\n\nBasis. Both answers place Verdant on the same material path: no June trigger, a clear duty by October 3 at the latest, December 2 notice dependent on Oakline’s authority or actual transmission, weak investigative prejudice, and settlement prejudice requiring proof that the insurer probably would have pursued the expired demand. Both recommend preserving evidence and obtaining targeted broker, portal, agency, prior-notice, and insurer records before pursuing a merits judgment or funding settlement.\n\n[B] rejected: “If the insurer had notice before December 20, it may argue that it lost a reasonable, time-limited settlement opportunity” — internally inconsistent with B’s timing analysis that the opportunity was lost if notice arrived after December 20.\n\nFailed candidate: September 18 as a likely trigger versus only an early warning — Different conduct failed; both readers pursue the same discovery and coverage strategy based on the undisputed October 3 trigger.\nFailed candidate: B’s more categorical prediction of coverage if notice occurred December 2 — Different conduct failed; both readers press coverage while testing prejudice.\nFailed candidate: A’s consent-clause warning before settlement — Different conduct failed; B also advises against funding settlement now.\nFailed candidate: A’s express broker E&O notice and policy-information request — Concrete consequence failed; the record supplies no broker-policy deadline or forfeiture consequence.\nFailed candidate: B’s express re-tender recommendation — Concrete consequence failed; no record-supported change in coverage, defense, or settlement follows from another tender after denial.\nFailed candidate: B’s proposed spoliation remedies — Record support failed; nonproduction alone does not establish destruction or willful spoliation.\n\nHard stop. The hard-stop 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"
    ]
  }
}