{
  "question": "q68",
  "model_1": "Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL",
  "model_2": "Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL",
  "answer_a_was": "Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL",
  "answer_b_was": "Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL",
  "verdict_code": "B",
  "winner": "Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL",
  "judge_model": "openai/gpt-5.6-sol",
  "server_model": "openai/gpt-5.6-sol",
  "provider": "OpenAI",
  "finish_reason": "stop",
  "usage": {
    "prompt_tokens": 9885,
    "completion_tokens": 968,
    "total_tokens": 10853,
    "cost": 0.0908175,
    "is_byok": false,
    "prompt_tokens_details": {
      "cached_tokens": 0,
      "cache_write_tokens": 9882,
      "audio_tokens": 0,
      "video_tokens": 0
    },
    "cost_details": {
      "upstream_inference_cost": 0.0908175,
      "upstream_inference_prompt_cost": 0.0617775,
      "upstream_inference_completions_cost": 0.02904
    },
    "completion_tokens_details": {
      "reasoning_tokens": 516,
      "image_tokens": 0,
      "audio_tokens": 0
    }
  },
  "eval_prompt_sha256": "7e58b951cb86e4deba3b60fd01e9b9bd247ebe9883e1c9e43b24acffb1fd4667",
  "report": "ANSWER B IS MATERIALLY BETTER.\n\nBasis. Answer A’s targeted demand omits the expressly unproduced customer-level lost-revenue schedules, while Answer B demands them to test the $8.4 million revenue foundation. Without those schedules, Granite Arc cannot reliably test or seek limitation of the $3.36 million corrected lost-profit claim; obtaining them preserves a supported challenge before the expert deadline.\n\nProof (winner verdicts only).\nExact difference. Answer A’s six-item demand omits the customer-level lost-revenue schedules; Answer B expressly demands them.\nDifferent conduct. Counsel following A does not demand those schedules, while counsel following B demands and reviews them before moving to limit or exclude.\nConcrete consequence. Under A, Granite Arc may leave the $8.4 million revenue premise—and thus $3.36 million in claimed lost profit—untested; under B, it preserves the evidentiary basis to challenge or limit that amount.\nRecord support. The question states that customer-level lost-revenue schedules were not produced and requires disclosure of data schedules and assumptions needed to test the opinion.\nMaterial magnitude. The schedules support the entire $8.4 million revenue input underlying $3.36 million of corrected lost profit and related interest.\nLikelihood. A competent defense lawyer would demand the expressly missing source schedules now because only ten days remain before the workpaper deadline.\nNo safe neutralization by ordinary verification. Testing the revenue premise without customer-level schedules would require independently reconstructing the expert’s lost-revenue analysis.\n\nFailed candidates. Additional native-file and crosswalk specifications — material magnitude failed.\nWritten election between future-loss methods — concrete consequence failed.\nAnswer B’s unsupported-future-damages fallback total — concrete consequence failed.\nDifferent ten-day sequencing detail — concrete consequence failed.\nAnswer A’s erroneous memorandum date — different conduct failed.\nAnswer B’s greater explanation and formatting — different conduct failed.\n\nHard stop. Because Answer A omitted the customer-level lost-revenue schedules from its demand, the reader would likely proceed without testing the $8.4 million revenue premise instead of demanding and reviewing its source schedules, causing Granite Arc to lose a timely evidentiary basis to challenge or limit the $3.36 million lost-profit claim.",
  "judge_reasoning": "",
  "_public_record": {
    "type": "published record",
    "policy": "../../PUBLIC_RECORD_POLICY.md",
    "transformations": [
      "non-substantive machine metadata normalized",
      "published-record annotation added"
    ]
  }
}