{
  "question": "q65",
  "model_1": "DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS",
  "model_2": "claude-opus-5",
  "answer_a_was": "claude-opus-5",
  "answer_b_was": "DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS",
  "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": 5947,
    "completion_tokens": 1814,
    "total_tokens": 7761,
    "cost": 0.091585,
    "is_byok": false,
    "prompt_tokens_details": {
      "cached_tokens": 0,
      "cache_write_tokens": 5944,
      "audio_tokens": 0,
      "video_tokens": 0
    },
    "cost_details": {
      "upstream_inference_cost": 0.091585,
      "upstream_inference_prompt_cost": 0.037165,
      "upstream_inference_completions_cost": 0.05442
    },
    "completion_tokens_details": {
      "reasoning_tokens": 1457,
      "image_tokens": 0,
      "audio_tokens": 0
    }
  },
  "eval_prompt_sha256": "7e58b951cb86e4deba3b60fd01e9b9bd247ebe9883e1c9e43b24acffb1fd4667",
  "provenance_date": "2026-08-08",
  "report": "TIE, FUNCTIONALLY EQUIVALENT.\n\nBasis. Both answers place AlloyWorks on the same material path: the contract formed February 2, the February 3 modification established April 15 delivery and a $3,000,000 aggregate cap, and neither the affected-unit cap nor consequential-damages exclusion applies. Both calculate $3,200,000 uncapped recoverable damages and $3,000,000 capped exposure, while excluding the $1,100,000 renewal loss; their differing litigation and settlement suggestions do not establish a different client outcome.\n\n[A] rejected: Meridian paid — record lacks payment facts.\n[A] rejected: interruption damages may fail for insufficient certainty, causation, or mitigation — record states Meridian proves the production-interruption loss and identifies the proven mitigation savings.\n[A] rejected: interest, costs, and fees count against the cap — record lacks a term or rule addressing those items.\n[A] rejected: advancing the displaced terms invites bad-faith or fee-shifting consequences — record lacks any supporting rule or facts.\n[A] rejected: specified trial-value and settlement-authority ranges — record lacks probability, discovery, and counterparty-acceptance facts supporting those figures.\n\nFailed candidates. Treatment of the consequential-damages exclusion as an additional rather than conflicting term — different conduct failed.\nFailed candidates. Answer A’s expanded quantum challenges and Answer B’s cap-level settlement ceiling — concrete consequence failed.\nFailed candidates. Answer A’s $200,000 cap-cushion explanation — different conduct failed.\nFailed candidates. Answer A’s proposed settlement brackets versus Answer B’s “up to $3,000,000” position — concrete consequence failed.\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"
    ]
  }
}