{
  "question": "q68",
  "model_1": "DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS",
  "model_2": "claude-opus-5",
  "answer_a_was": "DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS",
  "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": 6782,
    "completion_tokens": 1763,
    "total_tokens": 8545,
    "cost": 0.09527375,
    "is_byok": false,
    "prompt_tokens_details": {
      "cached_tokens": 0,
      "cache_write_tokens": 6779,
      "audio_tokens": 0,
      "video_tokens": 0
    },
    "cost_details": {
      "upstream_inference_cost": 0.09527375,
      "upstream_inference_prompt_cost": 0.04238375,
      "upstream_inference_completions_cost": 0.05289
    },
    "completion_tokens_details": {
      "reasoning_tokens": 1394,
      "image_tokens": 0,
      "audio_tokens": 0
    }
  },
  "eval_prompt_sha256": "7e58b951cb86e4deba3b60fd01e9b9bd247ebe9883e1c9e43b24acffb1fd4667",
  "provenance_date": "2026-08-08",
  "report": "TIE, FUNCTIONALLY EQUIVALENT.\n\nBasis. Both answers direct Granite Arc to the same corrected damages range, identify the same duplications and interest correction, demand the material native workpapers, and pursue supplementation followed by limitation or exclusion if testing remains impossible. Their additional procedural and explanatory differences do not establish a concrete change in Granite Arc’s litigation position or outcome.\n\n[A] rejected: “$8,580,000 × 1.06² = $1,060,488” — arithmetic contradicts the displayed equation, although $1,060,488 is correctly the interest increment.\n[B] rejected: removing the $200,000 freight entry “would move the margin only slightly” — record lacks the ledger values required to recompute the ratio.\n[B] rejected: “roughly one-third of the claim survives” — internally inconsistent with its corrected totals showing approximately 59% to 67% survives.\n\nFailed candidate: A’s malformed compound-interest equation — no safe neutralization failed; ordinary arithmetic verification leaves the correct interest correction unchanged.\nFailed candidate: B’s unsupported characterization of the recomputed margin — different conduct failed because B still demands the ledger and does not use the characterization in its totals.\nFailed candidate: B’s incorrect survival percentage — no safe neutralization failed because its tables and immediately following percentages expose the error.\nFailed candidate: B’s additional requests for drafts, engagement materials, and a cross-tie schedule — concrete consequence failed because the record does not show that requesting them changes any deadline, ruling, or recoverable amount.\nFailed candidate: Different motion, election, and deposition sequencing — concrete consequence failed because both preserve the same challenge and the record supplies no procedural fact making either sequence outcome-determinative.\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"
    ]
  }
}