{
  "question": "q65",
  "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": 6416,
    "completion_tokens": 1888,
    "total_tokens": 8304,
    "cost": 0.09673625,
    "is_byok": false,
    "prompt_tokens_details": {
      "cached_tokens": 0,
      "cache_write_tokens": 6413,
      "audio_tokens": 0,
      "video_tokens": 0
    },
    "cost_details": {
      "upstream_inference_cost": 0.09673625,
      "upstream_inference_prompt_cost": 0.04009625,
      "upstream_inference_completions_cost": 0.05664
    },
    "completion_tokens_details": {
      "reasoning_tokens": 1434,
      "image_tokens": 0,
      "audio_tokens": 0
    }
  },
  "eval_prompt_sha256": "7e58b951cb86e4deba3b60fd01e9b9bd247ebe9883e1c9e43b24acffb1fd4667",
  "provenance_date": "2026-08-08",
  "report": "TIE, FUNCTIONALLY EQUIVALENT.\n\nBasis. Both answers lead a competent reader to the same material position: the February 3 modification establishes April 15 delivery, permits recoverable downtime damages, and imposes a $3,000,000 aggregate cap; the invoice changes nothing. Both calculate $3,200,000 in uncapped recoverable damages, exclude the customer-specific $1,100,000, apply mitigation before the cap, reject AlloyWorks’ $375,000 theory, and reach capped liability of $3,000,000. Their divergent litigation and settlement suggestions lack a record-supported different outcome and are neutralized by the stipulated proof of damages.\n\n[B] rejected: challenges to the certainty, causation, and mitigation of the proved interruption and freight losses — record contradicts those challenges by stating Meridian proves the losses, causation, and mitigation savings.\n[B] rejected: $700,000–$2,600,000 settlement ranges premised on defeating proved losses — record contradicts the factual premise.\n[A] rejected: settlement authority up to $3,150,000 — record lacks quantified litigation costs or other exposure supporting payment above the $3,000,000 cap.\n[B] rejected: interest, costs, and fee awards necessarily count against the cap — record lacks governing rules or facts addressing those items.\n[B] rejected: Meridian paid — record lacks any payment fact.\n\nFailed candidates. Initial forms analysis — different conduct failed because the February 3 modification independently resolves the operative terms.\nFailed candidates. Expedited freight classified as direct versus consequential — concrete consequence failed because both recover the same $140,000 under the same cap.\nFailed candidates. Inspection and freight described as potentially contestable versus established — different conduct failed after verification against the stipulated proof.\nFailed candidates. Different settlement recommendations — concrete consequence failed because the record does not establish acceptance, litigation costs, or another resulting financial difference.\nFailed candidates. Proposed attacks on interruption quantum and mitigation — record support failed because the supplied facts state those damages and savings are proved.\nFailed candidates. Proposed treatment of fees, interest, and costs under the cap — record support failed.\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"
    ]
  }
}