{
  "question": "q76",
  "model_1": "DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS",
  "model_2": "Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL",
  "answer_a_was": "DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS",
  "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": 7136,
    "completion_tokens": 2051,
    "total_tokens": 9187,
    "cost": 0.10612625,
    "is_byok": false,
    "prompt_tokens_details": {
      "cached_tokens": 0,
      "cache_write_tokens": 7133,
      "audio_tokens": 0,
      "video_tokens": 0
    },
    "cost_details": {
      "upstream_inference_cost": 0.10612625,
      "upstream_inference_prompt_cost": 0.04459625,
      "upstream_inference_completions_cost": 0.06153
    },
    "completion_tokens_details": {
      "reasoning_tokens": 1657,
      "image_tokens": 0,
      "audio_tokens": 0
    }
  },
  "eval_prompt_sha256": "7e58b951cb86e4deba3b60fd01e9b9bd247ebe9883e1c9e43b24acffb1fd4667",
  "provenance_date": "2026-08-09",
  "report": "TIE, FUNCTIONALLY EQUIVALENT.\n\nBasis. Both answers direct Ava not to sign the draft, preserve her vested bonus and equity, protect her planned product role, narrow the nonsolicitation and confidentiality provisions, delete the post-employment invention claim, require proportionate adjudicated remedies, and add the seven-day revocation period. Their differences do not establish that Ava would take a materially different path or experience a concrete, record-supported difference in compensation, employment, or legal protection.\n\n[B] rejected: “Litigation puts $540,000+ (bonus + severance) at risk” — record contradicts the total because $140,000 plus 12 months of $360,000 salary equals $500,000.\n[B] rejected: remedies following uncured “non-material breaches” — internally inconsistent with its requirement of a material breach and the governing materiality rule.\n\nFailed candidates. Noncompete negotiation posture — different conduct failed because both packages preserve Ava’s planned product role.\nFailed candidates. Failure in B expressly to delete the ban on accepting unsolicited customer business — concrete consequence failed because no such customer approach is established.\nFailed candidates. B’s omission of some confidentiality exclusions — likelihood failed because the record identifies no expected use of public, independently developed, or lawfully received information.\nFailed candidates. Different treatment of post-employment inventions — concrete consequence failed because no post-employment invention is identified.\nFailed candidates. A’s additional release carve-outs — concrete consequence failed because both answers require payment of earned compensation regardless of the release.\nFailed candidates. B’s erroneous $540,000 calculation — no safe neutralization failed because ordinary arithmetic corrects it without changing conduct.\nFailed candidates. B’s reference to non-material breaches — no safe neutralization failed because its material-breach requirement and the governing rule cause a competent reader to reject that inconsistency.\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"
    ],
    "retained": [
      "substantive report",
      "verdict code",
      "winner mapping",
      "A/B assignment",
      "model and judge identifiers",
      "finish reason",
      "token counts",
      "provenance date"
    ]
  }
}