{
  "question": "q70",
  "model_1": "Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL",
  "model_2": "claude-opus-5",
  "answer_a_was": "claude-opus-5",
  "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": 3299,
    "completion_tokens": 1855,
    "total_tokens": 5154,
    "cost": 0.076265,
    "is_byok": false,
    "prompt_tokens_details": {
      "cached_tokens": 0,
      "cache_write_tokens": 3296,
      "audio_tokens": 0,
      "video_tokens": 0
    },
    "cost_details": {
      "upstream_inference_cost": 0.076265,
      "upstream_inference_prompt_cost": 0.020615,
      "upstream_inference_completions_cost": 0.05565
    },
    "completion_tokens_details": {
      "reasoning_tokens": 1552,
      "image_tokens": 0,
      "audio_tokens": 0
    }
  },
  "eval_prompt_sha256": "7e58b951cb86e4deba3b60fd01e9b9bd247ebe9883e1c9e43b24acffb1fd4667",
  "provenance_date": "2026-08-08",
  "report": "TIE, FUNCTIONALLY EQUIVALENT.\n\nBasis. Both letters put Rosa on the same materially correct path: sign the authorization immediately, preserve social-media evidence, attend and cooperate at the September 10 examination, review the September 12 report on September 15, and evaluate the $210,000 offer with the stated cost risk before September 18. Their differences do not establish any different action or concrete client consequence.\n\n[A] rejected: statement that the authorization is attached — record lacks an attachment.\n[A] rejected: characterization of the surgeon’s report as the “strongest evidence” — record lacks a comparison with other evidence.\n[B] rejected: prior-shoulder records “may be excluded” — record contradicts this by stating they will be excluded unless timely produced.\n\nFailed candidates. B’s omission of the presently undisputed $145,000 — different conduct failed.\nFailed candidates. B’s omission of the $120,000 surgery amount and express noneconomic-causation language — concrete consequence failed.\nFailed candidates. B’s failure to mention examination-scope disputes — record support failed.\nFailed candidates. A’s instruction to make accounts private and stop new posting — concrete consequence failed.\nFailed candidates. A’s statement that costs would come “out of your recovery” — different conduct failed.\nFailed candidates. The differing descriptions of the August 28 exclusion consequence — no safe neutralization failed.\n\nHard stop. The required 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"
    ]
  }
}