{
  "question": "q64",
  "model_1": "Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL",
  "model_2": "Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL",
  "answer_a_was": "Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL",
  "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": 11192,
    "completion_tokens": 1868,
    "total_tokens": 13060,
    "cost": 0.12598625,
    "is_byok": false,
    "prompt_tokens_details": {
      "cached_tokens": 0,
      "cache_write_tokens": 11189,
      "audio_tokens": 0,
      "video_tokens": 0
    },
    "cost_details": {
      "upstream_inference_cost": 0.12598625,
      "upstream_inference_prompt_cost": 0.06994625,
      "upstream_inference_completions_cost": 0.05604
    },
    "completion_tokens_details": {
      "reasoning_tokens": 1470,
      "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: treat October 3 as the likely trigger, determine whether Oakline had notice authority or transmitted before the critical deadlines, challenge investigative prejudice using the preserved evidence, and require proof that the insurer probably would have accepted the $225,000 settlement. Both direct Verdant to preserve evidence, compel Oakline’s records, pursue coverage, and reserve a broker claim if Oakline failed to transmit.\n\n[A] rejected: insurer with notice before December 20 may claim it lost the settlement opportunity — internally inconsistent with the stated causation requirement and the surrounding analysis.\n[B] rejected: December 2 was “nearly two months after the demand arrived” — record dates show 17 days.\n[B] rejected: a January 5 transmission receives the same prejudice analysis as December 2 — record shows the trench replacement and demand expiration occurred between those dates.\n[B] rejected: the $225,000 settlement might have been difficult to achieve — record identifies it as an outstanding offer for a complete release.\n[B] rejected: later notice was received before suit — record does not establish the suit date relative to transmission.\n\nFailed candidates. Later-transmission scenario — no safe neutralization failed because ordinary date verification exposes the error and both answers otherwise identify the settlement-prejudice issue.\nStrategic sequencing of coverage litigation and broker discovery — concrete consequence failed; both paths promptly use legal process to obtain the same pivotal evidence.\nAnswer A’s more detailed discovery list — different conduct failed; Answer B requests the same material categories and full discovery into Oakline’s role.\nSettlement valuation discussion — no safe neutralization failed because the demand terms and counsel’s exposure estimate permit immediate rejection of the disputed characterization.\nPotential negotiation with the neighbors — concrete consequence failed; the record establishes no available settlement terms or resulting loss from either recommendation.\n\nHard stop. It 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"
    ]
  }
}