{
  "question": "q71",
  "model_1": "DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS",
  "model_2": "Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL",
  "answer_a_was": "Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL",
  "answer_b_was": "DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS",
  "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": 3620,
    "completion_tokens": 1315,
    "total_tokens": 4935,
    "cost": 0.06207125,
    "is_byok": false,
    "prompt_tokens_details": {
      "cached_tokens": 0,
      "cache_write_tokens": 3617,
      "audio_tokens": 0,
      "video_tokens": 0
    },
    "cost_details": {
      "upstream_inference_cost": 0.06207125,
      "upstream_inference_prompt_cost": 0.02262125,
      "upstream_inference_completions_cost": 0.03945
    },
    "completion_tokens_details": {
      "reasoning_tokens": 1034,
      "image_tokens": 0,
      "audio_tokens": 0
    }
  },
  "eval_prompt_sha256": "7e58b951cb86e4deba3b60fd01e9b9bd247ebe9883e1c9e43b24acffb1fd4667",
  "provenance_date": "2026-08-08",
  "report": "TIE, FUNCTIONALLY EQUIVALENT.\n\nBasis. Both answers direct the board to settle by September 4 at 5:00 p.m., authorize $1.2 million currently and $1.3 million maximum, preserve the three critical nonmonetary terms, and continue monitoring and remediation. After ordinary verification rejects the isolated unsupported statements, both readers remain on the same materially correct and safe path.\n\n[A] rejected: policy breach alone could make the four local complaints actionable — governing rule requires deliberate prevention of escalation or actual central receipt.\n[A] rejected: August 30, 2024 memorandum date — record lacks the year.\n[B] rejected: “limited-rectal” terms — internally inconsistent with repeated references to limited recitals.\n[B] rejected: favorable terms are unlikely to survive litigation — record lacks support for that likelihood.\n\nFailed candidates. Treatment of the four local complaints — different conduct failed after ordinary verification.\nFailed candidates. Characterization of the email’s enhancement risk — different conduct failed.\nFailed candidates. B’s express document-preservation instruction — concrete consequence failed because no record-supported private claim or threatened evidence loss is identified.\nFailed candidates. B’s five-business-day board report — concrete consequence failed.\nFailed candidates. Differences in monitor and remediation wording — different conduct failed.\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"
    ]
  }
}