{
  "question": "q68",
  "model_1": "Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL",
  "model_2": "claude-opus-5",
  "answer_a_was": "Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL",
  "answer_b_was": "claude-opus-5",
  "verdict_code": "B",
  "winner": "claude-opus-5",
  "judge_model": "openai/gpt-5.6-sol",
  "server_model": "openai/gpt-5.6-sol",
  "provider": "OpenAI",
  "finish_reason": "stop",
  "usage": {
    "prompt_tokens": 7697,
    "completion_tokens": 2015,
    "total_tokens": 9712,
    "cost": 0.1085525,
    "is_byok": false,
    "prompt_tokens_details": {
      "cached_tokens": 0,
      "cache_write_tokens": 7694,
      "audio_tokens": 0,
      "video_tokens": 0
    },
    "cost_details": {
      "upstream_inference_cost": 0.1085525,
      "upstream_inference_prompt_cost": 0.0481025,
      "upstream_inference_completions_cost": 0.06045
    },
    "completion_tokens_details": {
      "reasoning_tokens": 1381,
      "image_tokens": 0,
      "audio_tokens": 0
    }
  },
  "eval_prompt_sha256": "7e58b951cb86e4deba3b60fd01e9b9bd247ebe9883e1c9e43b24acffb1fd4667",
  "provenance_date": "2026-08-08",
  "report": "ANSWER B IS MATERIALLY BETTER.\n\nBasis. Answer A omits the customer-level lost-revenue schedules from its targeted workpaper demand, while Answer B demands them before the deadline to test the $8.4 million revenue premise, causation, recapture, and overlap with attrition. That difference materially preserves Granite Arc’s ability to test or seek limitation of the foundational revenue opinion rather than allowing the expert deadline to pass with that input untested.\n\nProof.\nExact difference. Answer A’s six-item demand omits the expressly withheld “customer-level lost-revenue schedules”; Answer B specifically demands them.\nDifferent conduct. Counsel following A does not request those schedules before the deadline; counsel following B serves a targeted request and uses any nonproduction to support limitation.\nConcrete consequence. Under A, Granite Arc reaches the expert deadline without the data needed to test the $8.4 million revenue base; under B, it either obtains that data or preserves a specific nondisclosure basis for limiting the opinion.\nRecord support. The record identifies the schedules as unproduced, makes $8.4 million the lost-profit starting point, and permits targeted demands and limitation when missing workpapers prevent reliable testing.\nMaterial magnitude. The schedules support the revenue input underlying $3.36 million in corrected historical lost profit and may also reveal overlap with the $1.5 million attrition claim.\nLikelihood. A competent defense lawyer would request the expressly identified source schedules now because only ten days remain and the assignment specifically requires targeted workpaper demands.\nNo safe neutralization by ordinary verification. Fixing A requires adding a material demand and deriving its testing purpose; merely checking A’s listed requests does not supply or preserve access to the omitted schedules.\n\n[A] rejected: memorandum date of October 26, 2023 — record contradicts it with a January–June 2024 interruption and April 1, 2026 valuation date.\n[B] rejected: “roughly one-third of the claim survives” — record contradicts it with corrected totals equal to approximately 59% and 67% of the claim.\n\nFailed candidates. B’s erroneous survival fraction — no safe neutralization failed because the adjacent totals and percentages make the error immediately rejectable.\nFailed candidates. B’s additional draft-history and engagement-material requests — record support failed because the record does not establish that those materials exist or would change a material outcome.\nFailed candidates. Differences in motion sequencing and requested relief — concrete consequence failed because both answers direct timely supplementation, rebuttal preparation, and a limitation motion if production remains deficient.\nFailed candidates. Answer A’s erroneous memorandum date — no safe neutralization failed because it is visibly inconsistent and irrelevant to the proposed ten-day conduct.\nFailed candidates. Answer B’s cross-tie schedule request — record support failed because the record does not establish that such a separate schedule exists.\n\nHard stop. Because Answer A omitted the customer-level lost-revenue schedules, the reader would likely allow the expert deadline to pass without requesting them instead of demanding them and preserving enforcement, causing Granite Arc to lose a targeted means to test or limit the $8.4 million revenue premise.",
  "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"
    ]
  }
}