{
  "question": "q74",
  "model_1": "DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS",
  "model_2": "claude-opus-5",
  "answer_a_was": "DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS",
  "answer_b_was": "claude-opus-5",
  "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": 10394,
    "completion_tokens": 2396,
    "total_tokens": 12790,
    "cost": 0.13683875,
    "is_byok": false,
    "prompt_tokens_details": {
      "cached_tokens": 0,
      "cache_write_tokens": 10391,
      "audio_tokens": 0,
      "video_tokens": 0
    },
    "cost_details": {
      "upstream_inference_cost": 0.13683875,
      "upstream_inference_prompt_cost": 0.06495875,
      "upstream_inference_completions_cost": 0.07188
    },
    "completion_tokens_details": {
      "reasoning_tokens": 1992,
      "image_tokens": 0,
      "audio_tokens": 0
    }
  },
  "eval_prompt_sha256": "7e58b951cb86e4deba3b60fd01e9b9bd247ebe9883e1c9e43b24acffb1fd4667",
  "provenance_date": "2026-08-08",
  "report": "TIE, FUNCTIONALLY EQUIVALENT.\n\nBasis. Both answers lead NovaCrest to halt enrollment and affected or unverified interventions, continue necessary care, report promptly, obtain emergency approval, re-consent before intervention, notify completed subjects, preserve data and records, and determine scope subject by subject. Their operational differences do not produce a concrete, record-supported improvement or harm to the client.\n\n[B] rejected: all 12 awaiting subjects must be told their earlier form omitted the risk — record contradicts this for anyone verified as having signed version 4.1 or 4.3.\n[B] rejected: all 38 confirmed version-4.2 subjects completed intervention — record identifies four as awaiting implantation.\n[B] rejected: discovery-day counting may move the reporting deadlines to Tuesday — cited rules measure the periods after discovery.\n\nFailed candidates. Re-consenting all 12 versus only defective-form subjects: Concrete consequence failed; the record establishes no material harm from the additional consent or short postponement.\nFailed candidates. Reporting-date formulations: Different conduct failed; both answers direct filing well before either governing deadline.\nFailed candidates. Enhanced surveillance and additional outreach in B: Concrete consequence failed; the record does not show that these additions change a medical or safety outcome.\nFailed candidates. B’s forensic lockdown versus A’s preservation directive: Concrete consequence failed; both prevent replacement and preserve the audit trail, with no completed overwrite shown.\nFailed candidates. B’s temporary efficacy-data segregation versus A’s objection-based segregation: Concrete consequence failed; both preserve the data and defer continued-use authority to the ethics board.\nFailed candidates. B’s proposed disclosure of the CSO’s unexecuted request: Record support failed; no supplied rule requires that specific disclosure or establishes a resulting client consequence.\nFailed candidates. Scope-verification detail and consent-discussion modality: Different conduct failed; both require subject-level source verification and valid prospective re-consent.\n\nHard stop. The sentence cannot be completed with a concrete, record-supported consequence.",
  "judge_reasoning": "**Assessing output divergences**\n\nI need to judge the output carefully and assess the divergences closely. Both outputs seem generally the same, but there might be material errors in output B, especially regarding reporting deadlines. The governing rules say things should happen within five business days after discovery. It seems bizarre if discovery counts a day earlier, but the target is Thursday. \n\nAlso, A mentions that no implants can happen without confirmation, but should new enrollment really be stopped? There are complications here that need clarification.**Evaluating operational delays**\n\nOnce everything is verified, there might be a chance to proceed even before getting board approval. However, B postpones all and suggests unnecessary reconsents. I'm wondering if this materially affects the client since it delays implants, though there isn't an urgent need right now. A seems to indicate that confirmed good cases could go ahead, but there are multiple defective and unknown cases.\n\nAlso, B’s reconsent for all 12 seems unnecessary, yet it's safe. But will labeling the earlier forms omitted mislead subjects? Part 5 indicates that omitting previous forms could confuse them, and I wonder if a professional would handle this differently.**Considering consent implications**\n\nB states that all must consider the explicit statement about the earlier omission, which could lead to potential misinformation about consent. I'm wondering if this could cause subjects to decline participation. If the record doesn’t support the claim, it’s likely that it could be neutralized by verification, right? Once the original form is verified, ordinary readers might reject the claim of omission since it contradicts what’s documented. \n\nA mentions choices around data use, while B says it's up to the board to decide, which seems the same.",
  "_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"
    ]
  }
}