{
  "question": "q70",
  "model_1": "Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL",
  "model_2": "Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL",
  "answer_a_was": "Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL",
  "answer_b_was": "Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL",
  "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": 3153,
    "completion_tokens": 1417,
    "total_tokens": 4570,
    "cost": 0.0622125,
    "is_byok": false,
    "prompt_tokens_details": {
      "cached_tokens": 0,
      "cache_write_tokens": 3150,
      "audio_tokens": 0,
      "video_tokens": 0
    },
    "cost_details": {
      "upstream_inference_cost": 0.0622125,
      "upstream_inference_prompt_cost": 0.0197025,
      "upstream_inference_completions_cost": 0.04251
    },
    "completion_tokens_details": {
      "reasoning_tokens": 1144,
      "image_tokens": 0,
      "audio_tokens": 0
    }
  },
  "eval_prompt_sha256": "7e58b951cb86e4deba3b60fd01e9b9bd247ebe9883e1c9e43b24acffb1fd4667",
  "report": "TIE, FUNCTIONALLY EQUIVALENT.\n\nBasis. Both letters put Rosa on the same materially correct and safe path: sign the authorization immediately, attend the September 10 examination, preserve relevant content, review the causation report on September 15, and evaluate the $210,000 offer with accurate cost-shifting information. Their wording differences do not produce different conduct or a concrete different outcome.\n\n[B] rejected: the surgeon’s report “establishes whether” the surgery was caused by the crash — record lacks support that the report conclusively determines causation.\n\nFailed candidates. “Will be excluded” versus “may be excluded” for prior-treatment records — Different conduct failed; both require immediate authorization to meet August 28.\nFailed candidates. A expressly mentions proving pain and limitations while B refers generally to all damages — Different conduct failed.\nFailed candidates. A says the report may help show causation while B says it establishes causation — Different conduct failed after ordinary verification.\nFailed candidates. A mentions addressing examination conflicts with the court while B directs Rosa to contact counsel — Different conduct failed; Rosa’s required action is the same.\nFailed candidates. A gives a broader preservation list than B — Exact difference failed; both instruct preservation of all relevant content.\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"
    ]
  }
}