{
  "question": "q66",
  "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": 5607,
    "completion_tokens": 1837,
    "total_tokens": 7444,
    "cost": 0.09015,
    "is_byok": false,
    "prompt_tokens_details": {
      "cached_tokens": 0,
      "cache_write_tokens": 5604,
      "audio_tokens": 0,
      "video_tokens": 0
    },
    "cost_details": {
      "upstream_inference_cost": 0.09015,
      "upstream_inference_prompt_cost": 0.03504,
      "upstream_inference_completions_cost": 0.05511
    },
    "completion_tokens_details": {
      "reasoning_tokens": 1548,
      "image_tokens": 0,
      "audio_tokens": 0
    }
  },
  "eval_prompt_sha256": "7e58b951cb86e4deba3b60fd01e9b9bd247ebe9883e1c9e43b24acffb1fd4667",
  "provenance_date": "2026-08-08",
  "report": "TIE, FUNCTIONALLY EQUIVALENT.\n\nBasis. Both answers calculate the same expected costs—$2,250,000 for direct trial, $1,500,000 for settlement, and $1,858,750 for the counteroffer—and recommend accepting the current offer before expiration. After ordinary verification rejects the unsupported or contradictory embellishments, both readers remain on the same materially correct and safe path.\n\n[A] rejected: “management's preference to avoid paying above $1M overrides the mathematical optimum” — internally inconsistent with Rule 8 and A’s recommendation.\n[B] rejected: “Winning is the least likely single result” — record contradicts this with the 20% high-judgment branch.\n[B] rejected: trial creates an “unbounded-timing obligation” — record lacks payment-timing inputs.\n[B] rejected: proposed board-approval, additional release-term, and payment-timing steps — record lacks governance, agreement-text, and payment-timing inputs.\n\nFailed candidates. A’s management-preference statement — Different conduct failed.\nFailed candidates. B’s incorrect least-likely characterization — Different conduct failed.\nFailed candidates. B’s timing characterization — Different conduct failed.\nFailed candidates. B’s additional implementation steps — Concrete consequence failed.\nFailed candidates. B’s break-even and sensitivity analysis — Different conduct 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"
    ]
  }
}