{
  "question": "q73",
  "model_1": "DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS",
  "model_2": "Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL",
  "answer_a_was": "DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS",
  "answer_b_was": "Qwen3.8-27B-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": 7399,
    "completion_tokens": 1652,
    "total_tokens": 9051,
    "cost": 0.0958,
    "is_byok": false,
    "prompt_tokens_details": {
      "cached_tokens": 0,
      "cache_write_tokens": 7396,
      "audio_tokens": 0,
      "video_tokens": 0
    },
    "cost_details": {
      "upstream_inference_cost": 0.0958,
      "upstream_inference_prompt_cost": 0.04624,
      "upstream_inference_completions_cost": 0.04956
    },
    "completion_tokens_details": {
      "reasoning_tokens": 1443,
      "image_tokens": 0,
      "audio_tokens": 0
    }
  },
  "eval_prompt_sha256": "7e58b951cb86e4deba3b60fd01e9b9bd247ebe9883e1c9e43b24acffb1fd4667",
  "report": "TIE, FUNCTIONALLY EQUIVALENT.\n\nBasis. Both answers authorize antidepressant telehealth in all four states with the same clinician assignments; permit fully virtual stimulant care only in Birch; require Clearpath in-person examinations for Alder and Cedar stimulant pathways; and block stimulant telehealth in Dune. They also reject outside-primary-care examinations in Alder and Cedar, impose the same location, consent, Birch monitoring, platform-blocking, and marketing requirements, leaving both readers on the same materially lawful rollout path.\n\nFailed candidates. Answer B’s additional implementation details for location documentation and permit verification — concrete consequence failed.\nFailed candidates. Different wording about blocking new-patient stimulant prescribing in Alder and Cedar — different conduct failed because both block the proposed video-only pathway and permit only the same qualifying hybrid pathways.\nFailed candidates. Differences in proposed marketing language — different conduct failed because both prohibit the four-state fully virtual claim and authorize the same state-specific representations.\n\nHard stop. The sentence cannot be completed with a concrete, record-supported consequence.",
  "judge_reasoning": "**Evaluating prescription guidelines**\n\nI need to examine the output closely to identify any divergences. A and B are mostly aligned, but B mentions that video evaluations are only permitted for non-controlled prescriptions. They also reference a matrix that states controlled stimulants should only be prescribed if there's an in-person exam within the last 12 months. I’m unclear if a new patient can have this exam before a video prescription. A suggests a hybrid approach allows for an exam, while B claims video-first prescribing isn’t authorized.**Analyzing prescribing guidelines**\n\nThe question revolves around prescribing stimulants for new patients. The matrix indicates that a first controlled prescription requires an in-person examination. However, it doesn’t state that the prescription itself must occur in person, suggesting that it may be possible to prescribe via video after that initial exam. There's a potential divergence in marketing: A claims stimulant treatment needs an in-person exam before controlled treatment whereas B discusses established patients. I also notice discrepancies in how details and compliance are documented. I need to tie these points together to cover any divergences.**Identifying implementation challenges**\n\nI think there's a divergence regarding the implementation details in B's statements, particularly around Alder's controlled video evaluation not being authorized. I might need to address the first failed element here. It’s unclear if disputed unsupported contents are simply rejected. B’s requirement for documentation around state, date, time, and method seems unsupported, and while an ordinary reader might not reject it, it feels overly conservative without material consequences. The extra documentation might lead to operational burdens, even if it won't cause significant issues. I could summarize that B’s added documentation requirement has concrete consequences.",
  "_public_record": {
    "type": "published record",
    "policy": "../../PUBLIC_RECORD_POLICY.md",
    "transformations": [
      "non-substantive machine metadata normalized",
      "published-record annotation added"
    ]
  }
}