{
  "question": "q71",
  "model_1": "DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS",
  "model_2": "Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL",
  "answer_a_was": "Qwen3.8-27B-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": 3611,
    "completion_tokens": 1855,
    "total_tokens": 5466,
    "cost": 0.078215,
    "is_byok": false,
    "prompt_tokens_details": {
      "cached_tokens": 0,
      "cache_write_tokens": 3608,
      "audio_tokens": 0,
      "video_tokens": 0
    },
    "cost_details": {
      "upstream_inference_cost": 0.078215,
      "upstream_inference_prompt_cost": 0.022565,
      "upstream_inference_completions_cost": 0.05565
    },
    "completion_tokens_details": {
      "reasoning_tokens": 1510,
      "image_tokens": 0,
      "audio_tokens": 0
    }
  },
  "eval_prompt_sha256": "7e58b951cb86e4deba3b60fd01e9b9bd247ebe9883e1c9e43b24acffb1fd4667",
  "report": "TIE, FUNCTIONALLY EQUIVALENT.\n\nBasis. Both answers recommend accepting the consent order by 5:00 p.m. September 4, authorize the same $1.2 million current cost and $1.3 million ceiling, preserve the same nonmonetary conditions, and continue remediation. No difference shown would likely change professional conduct or produce a concrete, record-supported consequence.\n\n[B] rejected: “limited-rectal” — internally inconsistent with the memo’s repeated “limited recitals” condition.\n[B] rejected: favorable terms are “unlikely to survive” litigation — record lacks a basis for predicting post-litigation settlement terms.\n\nFailed candidate: B omits the monitor’s 18-month duration — different conduct not established because the offered monitor term is fixed and only the penalty remains negotiable.\nFailed candidate: Different treatment of the four local complaints — different conduct failed; both preserve the distinction and recommend settlement without conceding those complaints as violations.\nFailed candidate: Different characterization of the email’s penalty significance — different conduct failed; both treat it as adverse without conceding knowing misconduct.\nFailed candidate: A directs “escalation discipline,” while B does not expressly do so — concrete consequence and likelihood failed; no future event or likely reporting failure is established.\nFailed candidate: B adds document preservation and post-execution board reporting — concrete consequence failed; the record identifies no threatened destruction, private claim, or harm from omitting a five-day report.\nFailed candidate: B says reports were “9–34 days” late rather than “9–34 business days” late — different conduct failed.\n\nHard stop. The required sentence cannot be completed with a concrete, record-supported consequence.",
  "judge_reasoning": "**Assessing minimum conditions**\n\nI'm confirming the minimum of $2.25 million, which comes from $850k plus $1.4 million — that checks out. I wonder if the range mentioned covers what’s needed. The conditions require an 18-month monitor at a fixed cost, but I'm noting that there's an independent monitor with no stated duration.\n\nRegarding B’s offer, I see the initial cash mentions a monitor, but again, no duration. I'm thinking that omitting the 18-month detail could affect the board’s actions, which should clarify consent for monitoring.**Exploring conduct differences**\n\nI'm examining the different conditions between A and B. A has an authorization for 18 months, but B doesn't have a stated duration. It seems that B’s management could accept a longer monitor while still under a cash ceiling. The agency indicates that only penalties are negotiable, while the monitor remains fixed at $250k.\n\nNow, the authorization doesn’t specify a duration limit. So I’m wondering if B management would accept these terms, especially since it doesn't clearly say that only penalties are negotiable.",
  "_public_record": {
    "type": "published record",
    "policy": "../../PUBLIC_RECORD_POLICY.md",
    "transformations": [
      "non-substantive machine metadata normalized",
      "published-record annotation added"
    ]
  }
}