{
  "question": "q66",
  "model_1": "DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS",
  "model_2": "Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL",
  "answer_a_was": "DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS",
  "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": 5216,
    "completion_tokens": 398,
    "total_tokens": 5614,
    "cost": 0.04453625,
    "is_byok": false,
    "prompt_tokens_details": {
      "cached_tokens": 0,
      "cache_write_tokens": 5213,
      "audio_tokens": 0,
      "video_tokens": 0
    },
    "cost_details": {
      "upstream_inference_cost": 0.04453625,
      "upstream_inference_prompt_cost": 0.03259625,
      "upstream_inference_completions_cost": 0.01194
    },
    "completion_tokens_details": {
      "reasoning_tokens": 256,
      "image_tokens": 0,
      "audio_tokens": 0
    }
  },
  "eval_prompt_sha256": "7e58b951cb86e4deba3b60fd01e9b9bd247ebe9883e1c9e43b24acffb1fd4667",
  "report": "TIE, FUNCTIONALLY EQUIVALENT.\n\nBasis. Both readers calculate the same expected costs—$1,500,000 for settlement, $1,858,750 for the counteroffer, and $2,250,000 for direct trial—and recommend accepting the current offer before the deadline. Both exclude the $300,000 sunk cost and appropriately account for the trial tail, so the client follows the same materially correct path.\n\nFailed candidates. Answer B’s additional all-in sunk-cost reporting — different conduct failed.\nFailed candidates. Differences in tail-risk explanation and branch detail — different conduct failed.\n\nHard stop. The sentence cannot be completed with a concrete, record-supported consequence.",
  "judge_reasoning": "**Evaluating candidate divergences**\n\nI need to ensure that every candidate divergence identified by the two-client test is considered. The only substantive candidate seems to be B, who argues that the settlement removes the tail, noting that both EV and tail support the settlement. A, however, states that the tail doesn't override, yet both agree on it. B also claims that \"caps at 1.5m\" is accurate. I shouldn't invent details here, so I'll give a clear output with a hard stop on a single statement.",
  "_public_record": {
    "type": "published record",
    "policy": "../../PUBLIC_RECORD_POLICY.md",
    "transformations": [
      "non-substantive machine metadata normalized",
      "published-record annotation added"
    ]
  }
}