{
  "question": "q67",
  "model_1": "Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL",
  "model_2": "claude-opus-5",
  "answer_a_was": "Qwen3.8-27B-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": 7735,
    "completion_tokens": 1838,
    "total_tokens": 9573,
    "cost": 0.10348,
    "is_byok": false,
    "prompt_tokens_details": {
      "cached_tokens": 0,
      "cache_write_tokens": 7732,
      "audio_tokens": 0,
      "video_tokens": 0
    },
    "cost_details": {
      "upstream_inference_cost": 0.10348,
      "upstream_inference_prompt_cost": 0.04834,
      "upstream_inference_completions_cost": 0.05514
    },
    "completion_tokens_details": {
      "reasoning_tokens": 1466,
      "image_tokens": 0,
      "audio_tokens": 0
    }
  },
  "eval_prompt_sha256": "7e58b951cb86e4deba3b60fd01e9b9bd247ebe9883e1c9e43b24acffb1fd4667",
  "report": "TIE, FUNCTIONALLY EQUIVALENT.\n\nBasis. Both answers direct the firm to accept, retain both experts, obtain certificates within 20 days, and file at least 30 days before limitations expires. They reach the same liability conclusions and identical economic results, including the firm’s $185,333 expected net return. The additional investigations and controls proposed by Answer B do not produce a concrete, record-supported difference in Lena’s outcome.\n\n[B] rejected: the acknowledgment is machine-generated and forecloses the usual notice defense — record establishes electronic acknowledgment but not how it was generated or that all notice defenses are foreclosed.\n[B] rejected: costs may exceed the supplied projection and require a $250,000 cap — record supplies fixed projected costs of $240,000 and no basis for an overrun.\n[B] rejected: metadata faces a routine purge cycle — record contains no retention policy or threatened purge.\n\nFailed candidates. Pre-2:00 a.m. surgical-feasibility checkpoint — concrete consequence failed because the record does not establish that timely surgery was infeasible or what the investigation would show.\nFailed candidates. Immediate evidence-preservation letter — concrete consequence failed because no evidence loss or threatened destruction is established.\nFailed candidates. Cost cap and sensitivity controls — different conduct failed because supplied costs remain $240,000, below the proposed cap.\nFailed candidates. Day 35–40 versus Day 75 filing target — concrete consequence failed because both dates permit filing with certificates before the Day-80 policy deadline.\nFailed candidates. Written disclosure of branch recoveries — concrete consequence failed because no different client decision or financial result is demonstrated.\nFailed candidates. Characterizing the acknowledgment defense as foreclosed — record support failed because electronic acknowledgment does not establish the additional assertions.\n\nHard stop. It 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"
    ]
  }
}