{
  "question": "q74",
  "model_1": "Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL",
  "model_2": "Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL",
  "answer_a_was": "Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL",
  "answer_b_was": "Qwen3.5-27B-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": 11593,
    "completion_tokens": 2385,
    "total_tokens": 13978,
    "cost": 0.1440025,
    "is_byok": false,
    "prompt_tokens_details": {
      "cached_tokens": 0,
      "cache_write_tokens": 11590,
      "audio_tokens": 0,
      "video_tokens": 0
    },
    "cost_details": {
      "upstream_inference_cost": 0.1440025,
      "upstream_inference_prompt_cost": 0.0724525,
      "upstream_inference_completions_cost": 0.07155
    },
    "completion_tokens_details": {
      "reasoning_tokens": 2006,
      "image_tokens": 0,
      "audio_tokens": 0
    }
  },
  "eval_prompt_sha256": "7e58b951cb86e4deba3b60fd01e9b9bd247ebe9883e1c9e43b24acffb1fd4667",
  "report": "TIE, FUNCTIONALLY EQUIVALENT.\n\nBasis. Both answers direct the same materially safe path: immediate holds for defective or unverified consent, continued necessary care, timely oversight reporting, emergency approval, subject-level verification and re-consent, completed-subject notice, preservation of the audit trail, and ethics-board control over prior data use. Their differences do not establish a concrete, record-supported change in subject safety, consent validity, reporting compliance, or data treatment.\n\n[B] rejected: all 38 confirmed v4.2 subjects “already received implants” — record lacks completion or implantation status for those 38 subjects.\n[B] rejected: deviation “will result in severe regulatory sanctions and potential liability for fraud or negligence” — record lacks those specified consequences.\n\nFailed candidates. Ethics-board deadline calculation — different conduct failed because both plans require a timely report before either stated outside date.\nFailed candidates. Re-consenting all 12 scheduled subjects rather than exempting those verified as v4.1/v4.3 — concrete consequence failed because no refusal, delay, or resulting harm is established.\nFailed candidates. Treatment of other v4.2 subjects who may have unfinished interventions — record support failed because no such subject or scheduled intervention beyond the identified 12 is established.\nFailed candidates. Pausing research-specific procedures during safety visits — different conduct failed because both continue medically necessary safety care and defer only nonurgent research components.\nFailed candidates. Supplementing the ordinary safety report — concrete consequence failed because both report the event through the consent-noncompliance process and notify the affected subject.\nFailed candidates. Earlier regulator notification and more detailed data restrictions in Answer A — concrete consequence failed because Answer B also preserves the data, submits timely reports, and defers continued-use authority to the ethics board.\n\nHard stop. The required 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"
    ]
  }
}