{
  "question": "q67",
  "model_1": "DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS",
  "model_2": "claude-opus-5",
  "answer_a_was": "claude-opus-5",
  "answer_b_was": "DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS",
  "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": 5477,
    "completion_tokens": 1915,
    "total_tokens": 7392,
    "cost": 0.0916775,
    "is_byok": false,
    "prompt_tokens_details": {
      "cached_tokens": 0,
      "cache_write_tokens": 5474,
      "audio_tokens": 0,
      "video_tokens": 0
    },
    "cost_details": {
      "upstream_inference_cost": 0.0916775,
      "upstream_inference_prompt_cost": 0.0342275,
      "upstream_inference_completions_cost": 0.05745
    },
    "completion_tokens_details": {
      "reasoning_tokens": 1552,
      "image_tokens": 0,
      "audio_tokens": 0
    }
  },
  "eval_prompt_sha256": "7e58b951cb86e4deba3b60fd01e9b9bd247ebe9883e1c9e43b24acffb1fd4667",
  "provenance_date": "2026-08-08",
  "report": "TIE, FUNCTIONALLY EQUIVALENT.\n\nBasis. Both answers direct the firm to accept, retain both experts, obtain certificates, and file safely before day 80. They reach the same liability assessment, recoveries, expected $185,333 firm return, and materially safe filing path; Answer A’s additional cautions do not establish a record-supported different outcome.\n\n[A] rejected: the acknowledgment proves an 8-hour, 12-minute post-acknowledgment delay and forecloses a “never saw it” defense — record lacks the acknowledgment timestamp and facts foreclosing that defense.\n[A] rejected: evidence faces a routine purge cycle — record lacks retention or purge facts.\n[A] rejected: cost overruns or a reduced success estimate threaten the current intake decision — record supplies $240,000 costs and a 55 percent success probability for intake.\n\nFailed candidates.\nPre-2:00 a.m. feasibility investigation — concrete consequence failed; the record does not establish that timely surgery was infeasible or that investigation would change acceptance.\nImmediate preservation letter — record support failed; no imminent destruction or purge is supplied.\nCost cap and sensitivity analysis — likelihood failed; no cost overrun or probability revision is forecast.\nDay-20 versus Day-35–40 filing target — concrete consequence failed; both dates satisfy the certificate, policy, and limitations requirements.\nWritten disclosure of branch recoveries — concrete consequence failed; both answers calculate the same client recoveries, and no different client decision is demonstrated.\nStronger breach characterization — different conduct failed; both readers would pursue the same breach theory.\nConditional acceptance language — different conduct failed; Answer A ultimately accepts and initiates the same filing process as Answer B.\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"
    ]
  }
}