{
  "question": "q65",
  "model_1": "Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL",
  "model_2": "claude-opus-5",
  "answer_a_was": "claude-opus-5",
  "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": 7781,
    "completion_tokens": 1963,
    "total_tokens": 9744,
    "cost": 0.1075175,
    "is_byok": false,
    "prompt_tokens_details": {
      "cached_tokens": 0,
      "cache_write_tokens": 7778,
      "audio_tokens": 0,
      "video_tokens": 0
    },
    "cost_details": {
      "upstream_inference_cost": 0.1075175,
      "upstream_inference_prompt_cost": 0.0486275,
      "upstream_inference_completions_cost": 0.05889
    },
    "completion_tokens_details": {
      "reasoning_tokens": 1548,
      "image_tokens": 0,
      "audio_tokens": 0
    }
  },
  "eval_prompt_sha256": "7e58b951cb86e4deba3b60fd01e9b9bd247ebe9883e1c9e43b24acffb1fd4667",
  "report": "TIE, FUNCTIONALLY EQUIVALENT.\n\nBasis. Both answers lead AlloyWorks to the same material path: recognize the February 2 contract and February 3 modification, reject the affected-unit cap and consequential-damages exclusion, exclude the customer-specific lost profits, deduct mitigation, and apply the $3,000,000 cap to $3,200,000 in otherwise recoverable damages. Both therefore identify $3,000,000 as the maximum recovery and advise against relying on the $375,000 cap.\n\n[A] rejected: Meridian paid — record lacks payment facts.\n[A] rejected: pressing rejected terms invites bad-faith or fee-shifting consequences — record lacks an applicable bad-faith or fee-shifting rule.\n[A] rejected: interest, costs, and fee awards count against the cap — record lacks terms or rules establishing that scope.\n[A] rejected: specified settlement ranges and a $2,400,000 authority ceiling — record lacks settlement probabilities or facts supporting those figures.\n[A] rejected: Meridian’s proven interruption damages should be discounted based on proportionality, certainty, or additional mitigation — record states Meridian proves the loss and identifies the proven mitigation savings.\n\nFailed candidate: Different treatment of the February 2 consequential-damages terms — different conduct failed because the February 3 modification produces the same operative terms.\nFailed candidate: A’s proposed segregation of April 1–15 delay losses — concrete consequence failed because the record identifies no delay-caused damages.\nFailed candidate: Different settlement recommendations — concrete consequence failed because the record supplies no settlement offer, litigation cost, or other event showing that either posture changes AlloyWorks’ outcome.\nFailed candidate: A’s proposed inclusion of interest, costs, and fees within the cap — concrete consequence failed because no such amounts or awards appear in the record.\nFailed candidate: A’s suggested attacks on the proven interruption amount — no safe neutralization failed because ordinary verification against the stipulated facts rejects those attacks before action.\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"
    ]
  }
}