{
  "question": "q71",
  "model_1": "DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS",
  "model_2": "claude-opus-5",
  "answer_a_was": "claude-opus-5",
  "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": 3815,
    "completion_tokens": 2821,
    "total_tokens": 6636,
    "cost": 0.10847,
    "is_byok": false,
    "prompt_tokens_details": {
      "cached_tokens": 0,
      "cache_write_tokens": 3812,
      "audio_tokens": 0,
      "video_tokens": 0
    },
    "cost_details": {
      "upstream_inference_cost": 0.10847,
      "upstream_inference_prompt_cost": 0.02384,
      "upstream_inference_completions_cost": 0.08463
    },
    "completion_tokens_details": {
      "reasoning_tokens": 2506,
      "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, authorize the same $1.2 million current cost and $1.3 million ceiling, preserve the same nonmonetary conditions, and continue remediation. Their differences do not demonstrably change the board’s decision or leave StrataLift in a materially different legal, financial, or operational position.\n\n[A] rejected: the email “will be used to seek an enhanced penalty” — record lacks evidence of the agency’s intended use of the email.\n[B] rejected: favorable terms are “unlikely to survive a fight” — record lacks evidence about terms available after litigation.\n[B] rejected: “limited-rectal” — internally inconsistent with the repeated requirement for limited recitals.\n\nFailed candidate: A’s corrective directive and training versus B’s existing-control remediation — concrete consequence failed because the record does not establish that the email remains an operative instruction or that a future report would be mishandled.\nFailed candidate: B’s express document-preservation instruction versus A’s litigation-hold agenda item — concrete consequence failed because no threatened loss of evidence is shown.\nFailed candidate: A’s apparent excess over the 500-word limit — concrete consequence failed because no different board action or client outcome is demonstrated.\nFailed candidate: Differences in implementation details and characterization of the four local complaints — different conduct failed.\nFailed candidate: B’s typographical error — 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"
    ]
  }
}