{
  "question": "q66",
  "model_1": "Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL",
  "model_2": "Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL",
  "answer_a_was": "Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL",
  "answer_b_was": "Qwen3.5-27B-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": 5799,
    "completion_tokens": 716,
    "total_tokens": 6515,
    "cost": 0.05772,
    "is_byok": false,
    "prompt_tokens_details": {
      "cached_tokens": 0,
      "cache_write_tokens": 5796,
      "audio_tokens": 0,
      "video_tokens": 0
    },
    "cost_details": {
      "upstream_inference_cost": 0.05772,
      "upstream_inference_prompt_cost": 0.03624,
      "upstream_inference_completions_cost": 0.02148
    },
    "completion_tokens_details": {
      "reasoning_tokens": 516,
      "image_tokens": 0,
      "audio_tokens": 0
    }
  },
  "eval_prompt_sha256": "7e58b951cb86e4deba3b60fd01e9b9bd247ebe9883e1c9e43b24acffb1fd4667",
  "report": "TIE, FUNCTIONALLY EQUIVALENT.\n\nBasis. Both readers would accept the current settlement before the deadline because its $1,500,000 cost is lower than the counteroffer’s $1,858,750 expected cost and direct trial’s $2,250,000 expected cost. Both exclude the $300,000 sunk cost and recognize the trial tail without allowing it to replace the expected-cost rule.\n\n[B] rejected: management’s preference “overrides the mathematical optimum” — internally inconsistent with Rule 8 and Answer B’s concrete recommendation.\n[B] rejected: the tail judgment would cause an “immediate” outflow — record lacks cash-timing facts.\n\nFailed candidates. Management-preference override statement — different conduct failed.\nFailed candidates. Unsupported immediate-outflow characterization — different conduct failed.\nFailed candidates. Answer A’s additional all-in lifetime-cost presentation — different conduct failed.\n\nHard stop. The sentence cannot be completed with a concrete, record-supported consequence.",
  "judge_reasoning": "**Evaluating candidate format**\n\nAlright, I’m considering how B rounds 358,750 to around 360k. It's a minor adjustment and seems harmless. But about the candidates — perhaps it’s not fully surfaced. I need the \"failed candidates\" to address every divergence noted by the Two-Client Test. We can only choose two candidates. I wonder if I should output without headers? The format specifies the Verdict should be the first line, followed by the Basis, and have neutralization lines without headers. I aim for a hard stop on the failed candidate lines.",
  "_public_record": {
    "type": "published record",
    "policy": "../../PUBLIC_RECORD_POLICY.md",
    "transformations": [
      "non-substantive machine metadata normalized",
      "published-record annotation added"
    ]
  }
}