{
  "question": "q68",
  "model_1": "DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS",
  "model_2": "Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL",
  "answer_a_was": "DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS",
  "answer_b_was": "Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL",
  "verdict_code": "A",
  "winner": "DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS",
  "judge_model": "openai/gpt-5.6-sol",
  "server_model": "openai/gpt-5.6-sol",
  "provider": "OpenAI",
  "finish_reason": "stop",
  "usage": {
    "prompt_tokens": 6165,
    "completion_tokens": 2057,
    "total_tokens": 8222,
    "cost": 0.1002375,
    "is_byok": false,
    "prompt_tokens_details": {
      "cached_tokens": 0,
      "cache_write_tokens": 6162,
      "audio_tokens": 0,
      "video_tokens": 0
    },
    "cost_details": {
      "upstream_inference_cost": 0.1002375,
      "upstream_inference_prompt_cost": 0.0385275,
      "upstream_inference_completions_cost": 0.06171
    },
    "completion_tokens_details": {
      "reasoning_tokens": 1552,
      "image_tokens": 0,
      "audio_tokens": 0
    }
  },
  "eval_prompt_sha256": "7e58b951cb86e4deba3b60fd01e9b9bd247ebe9883e1c9e43b24acffb1fd4667",
  "provenance_date": "2026-08-08",
  "report": "ANSWER A IS MATERIALLY BETTER.\n\nBasis. Answer A directs Granite Arc to demand the missing customer-level lost-revenue schedules; Answer B’s purportedly complete demand omits them. Following Answer B would leave the foundational $8.4 million revenue figure, causation, and historical/future-loss overlap untested when the workpaper deadline expires, materially weakening Granite Arc’s evidentiary basis to limit the opinion.\n\nProof (winner verdicts only).\nExact difference: Answer B omits customer-level lost-revenue schedules from its six-item workpaper demand; Answer A expressly demands them.\nDifferent conduct: Counsel following A demands those schedules before the deadline; counsel following B demands only its six listed categories.\nConcrete consequence: Under B, Granite Arc reaches the deadline without targeted production needed to test the $8.4 million revenue premise and support limitation or exclusion.\nRecord support: The record identifies the schedules as unproduced, makes $8.4 million the lost-revenue input, requires disclosure of data schedules, and sets a ten-day deadline.\nMaterial magnitude: The untested input drives the $3.36 million corrected historical-profit claim and may also reveal overlap with future attrition damages.\nLikelihood: A competent defense lawyer would demand the identified schedules now because the stated deadline is imminent and reliable testing is required.\nNo safe neutralization by ordinary verification: Adding the omitted demand and explaining its significance requires supplying analysis and litigation action that Answer B did not provide.\n\n[B] rejected: memorandum date of October 26, 2023 — internally inconsistent with the 2024 loss period and 2026 valuation date.\n[B] rejected: “Subtotal (Past Damages)” labels in both corrected-total tables — internally inconsistent with the tables’ inclusion of future damages in the stated totals.\n\nFailed candidates. Memorandum date: different conduct failed.\nFailed candidates. “Subtotal (Past Damages)” labeling: different conduct failed.\nFailed candidates. Different motion, review, and meet-and-confer sequencing: concrete consequence failed.\nFailed candidates. Freight-overlap explanation: different conduct failed.\nFailed candidates. Combined versus separately listed attrition and valuation models: exact difference failed.\n\nHard stop. Because Answer B omitted the customer-level lost-revenue schedules, the reader would likely let the workpaper deadline pass without demanding them instead of obtaining the data needed to test the $8.4 million premise, causing Granite Arc to lose a timely evidentiary basis for challenging or limiting that component of the expert opinion.",
  "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"
    ]
  }
}