{
  "question": "q68",
  "model_1": "DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS",
  "model_2": "Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL",
  "answer_a_was": "Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL",
  "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": 8970,
    "completion_tokens": 823,
    "total_tokens": 9793,
    "cost": 0.08074875,
    "is_byok": false,
    "prompt_tokens_details": {
      "cached_tokens": 0,
      "cache_write_tokens": 8967,
      "audio_tokens": 0,
      "video_tokens": 0
    },
    "cost_details": {
      "upstream_inference_cost": 0.08074875,
      "upstream_inference_prompt_cost": 0.05605875,
      "upstream_inference_completions_cost": 0.02469
    },
    "completion_tokens_details": {
      "reasoning_tokens": 516,
      "image_tokens": 0,
      "audio_tokens": 0
    }
  },
  "eval_prompt_sha256": "7e58b951cb86e4deba3b60fd01e9b9bd247ebe9883e1c9e43b24acffb1fd4667",
  "report": "TIE, FUNCTIONALLY EQUIVALENT.\n\nBasis. Both answers direct Granite Arc to the same corrected range, identify the same overstatements and duplications, demand substantially the same native workpapers, and recommend immediate supplementation followed by limitation or exclusion if reliable testing remains impossible. Their differences do not establish any different material litigation outcome within the ten-day period.\n\n[B] rejected: “$8,580,000 × 1.06² = $1,060,488” — internally inconsistent with the stated subtotal and the answer’s correct interest-overstatement calculation.\n\nFailed candidates. Answer B’s erroneous compound-interest equation — no safe-neutralization element failed because ordinary arithmetic verification rejects it without changing the correct $453,600 calculation.\nFailed candidates. Answer A’s additional crosswalk and written-election demands — concrete consequence failed; the record does not show that their omission from Answer B changes supplementation, admissibility, or damages.\nFailed candidates. Different proposed interim deadlines and procedural detail — record support failed; no supplied scheduling facts establish that either sequence preserves or loses a procedural right.\nFailed candidates. Answer A’s unsupported-future-damages fallback total — different conduct failed; Answer B also recommends exclusion when missing workpapers prevent reliable testing.\nFailed candidates. Answer A’s additional deposition, hearing, and trial-preparation detail — material magnitude failed; both answers prescribe the same immediate demand, verification, rebuttal, and limitation strategy.\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"
    ]
  }
}