{
  "question": "q75",
  "model_1": "Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL",
  "model_2": "claude-opus-5",
  "answer_a_was": "claude-opus-5",
  "answer_b_was": "Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL",
  "verdict_code": "B",
  "winner": "Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL",
  "judge_model": "openai/gpt-5.6-sol",
  "server_model": "openai/gpt-5.6-sol",
  "provider": "OpenAI",
  "finish_reason": "stop",
  "usage": {
    "prompt_tokens": 3864,
    "completion_tokens": 1256,
    "total_tokens": 5120,
    "cost": 0.06182625,
    "is_byok": false,
    "prompt_tokens_details": {
      "cached_tokens": 0,
      "cache_write_tokens": 3861,
      "audio_tokens": 0,
      "video_tokens": 0
    },
    "cost_details": {
      "upstream_inference_cost": 0.06182625,
      "upstream_inference_prompt_cost": 0.02414625,
      "upstream_inference_completions_cost": 0.03768
    },
    "completion_tokens_details": {
      "reasoning_tokens": 822,
      "image_tokens": 0,
      "audio_tokens": 0
    }
  },
  "eval_prompt_sha256": "7e58b951cb86e4deba3b60fd01e9b9bd247ebe9883e1c9e43b24acffb1fd4667",
  "provenance_date": "2026-08-09",
  "report": "ANSWER B IS MATERIALLY BETTER.\n\nBasis. Answer A is truncated and omits the exemption analysis, limitation determination, calculations, damages, and demand necessary to act. Answer B correctly directs counsel to pursue all 120 weeks, demanding $46,800 in unpaid overtime plus $46,800 in liquidated damages, for a total of $93,600 before fees and costs.\n\nProof (winner verdicts only).\nExact difference. Answer A provides no usable conclusion or calculation; Answer B concludes Noah is nonexempt and quantifies a $93,600 recovery.\nDifferent conduct. Answer A’s reader cannot safely formulate a claim without rebuilding the analysis, while Answer B’s reader demands $93,600 and pursues the full 120-week period.\nConcrete consequence. Noah has an actionable claim for $93,600 under Answer B but no supported demand amount or litigation position under Answer A.\nRecord support. The fixed matrix duties defeat independent judgment; the warning and response establish willfulness and defeat good faith; $1,200 ÷ 40 × 1.5 applied to the stated overtime yields $46,800 plus equal liquidated damages.\nMaterial magnitude. The omitted analysis concerns the entire $93,600 wage recovery and the additional 16 weeks available through willfulness.\nLikelihood. A rational attorney would act on Answer B’s supported calculation but could not act on Answer A without independently performing the assigned work.\nNo safe neutralization by ordinary verification. Repairing Answer A requires reconstructing the complete exemption, limitations, and damages analysis rather than checking supplied work.\n\n[B] rejected: demand for accrued interest — record lacks any rule authorizing or calculating interest.\n\nFailed candidates. Answer B’s accrued-interest demand — record support failed.\nFailed candidates. Answer B’s categorical recommendation to reject any back-wages-only settlement — concrete consequence failed because settlement considerations beyond the supplied record are unknown.\n\nHard stop. Because Answer A omitted the entire operative analysis and calculation, the reader would likely withhold a quantified demand instead of demanding $93,600 for all 120 weeks, causing Noah to lack an actionable position for his full wage recovery.",
  "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"
    ]
  }
}