{
  "question": "q64",
  "model_1": "Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL",
  "model_2": "claude-opus-5",
  "answer_a_was": "Qwen3.5-27B-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": 8240,
    "completion_tokens": 1971,
    "total_tokens": 10211,
    "cost": 0.11062625,
    "is_byok": false,
    "prompt_tokens_details": {
      "cached_tokens": 0,
      "cache_write_tokens": 8237,
      "audio_tokens": 0,
      "video_tokens": 0
    },
    "cost_details": {
      "upstream_inference_cost": 0.11062625,
      "upstream_inference_prompt_cost": 0.05149625,
      "upstream_inference_completions_cost": 0.05913
    },
    "completion_tokens_details": {
      "reasoning_tokens": 1500,
      "image_tokens": 0,
      "audio_tokens": 0
    }
  },
  "eval_prompt_sha256": "7e58b951cb86e4deba3b60fd01e9b9bd247ebe9883e1c9e43b24acffb1fd4667",
  "provenance_date": "2026-08-08",
  "report": "TIE, FUNCTIONALLY EQUIVALENT.\n\nBasis. Both readers would treat October 3 as the notice trigger, obtain Oakline’s agency and transmission records, preserve the remaining evidence, contest investigative prejudice, investigate the expired settlement opportunity, pursue renewed settlement discussions, and challenge the denial while preserving a broker claim. Their differences in sequencing and detail do not establish a different concrete outcome for Verdant on this record.\n\n[A] rejected: November 15 to December 2 was “nearly two months” — record contradicts this with a 17-day interval.\n[A] rejected: a later transmission receives the “same analysis as Dec 2” — record contradicts this with the December 20 settlement deadline.\n[A] rejected: projected liability and damages suggest the $225,000 settlement “might have been difficult to achieve” — internally inconsistent with the stated 65% liability probability and $300,000–$500,000 damages estimate.\n[B] rejected: only “18 usable days” were lost if Oakline never transmitted — internally inconsistent with B’s October 3 trigger and its recognition that timely notice could have preceded the demand.\n\nFailed candidates.\nLater-transmission analysis — no safe-neutralization element failed; the error is apparent from the stated dates, and A separately addresses settlement prejudice and broker liability.\nSettlement strategy — different-conduct element failed; both answers direct Verdant to negotiate with the neighbors rather than accept the $2.4 million figure.\nLitigation sequencing and alternative joinder — concrete-consequence element failed; the record does not show that immediate filing versus a short production deadline changes Verdant’s rights or recovery.\nBroker-document specificity — different-conduct element failed; both seek the agency agreements, portal logs, prior accepted notices, and Oakline’s internal file.\nRe-tender and prejudice package — concrete-consequence element failed; no record-supported change in the insurer’s position or the underlying claim is established.\nSettlement-value reasoning — no-safe-neutralization element failed; the arithmetic is facially checkable, and A still treats settlement prejudice as the principal factual dispute.\nInvestigative-prejudice reasoning — different-conduct element failed; both rely on the photographs, measurements, split samples, and available witnesses to contest prejudice.\n\nHard stop. The required 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"
    ]
  }
}