{
  "question": "q76",
  "model_1": "DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS",
  "model_2": "Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL",
  "answer_a_was": "Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL",
  "answer_b_was": "DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS",
  "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": 11113,
    "completion_tokens": 2160,
    "total_tokens": 13273,
    "cost": 0.1342525,
    "is_byok": false,
    "prompt_tokens_details": {
      "cached_tokens": 0,
      "cache_write_tokens": 11110,
      "audio_tokens": 0,
      "video_tokens": 0
    },
    "cost_details": {
      "upstream_inference_cost": 0.1342525,
      "upstream_inference_prompt_cost": 0.0694525,
      "upstream_inference_completions_cost": 0.0648
    },
    "completion_tokens_details": {
      "reasoning_tokens": 1820,
      "image_tokens": 0,
      "audio_tokens": 0
    }
  },
  "eval_prompt_sha256": "7e58b951cb86e4deba3b60fd01e9b9bd247ebe9883e1c9e43b24acffb1fd4667",
  "report": "TIE, FUNCTIONALLY EQUIVALENT.\n\nBasis. Both answers direct Ava not to sign the draft, preserve her earned bonus and vested equity, protect her planned employment, narrow the solicitation and confidentiality covenants, delete the post-employment invention assignment, require proportionate adjudicated remedies, and add the seven-day revocation period. Their isolated drafting differences do not establish a different concrete outcome on the supplied facts.\n\n[A] rejected: employee nonsolicitation extending to employees with whom Ava merely had “material contact” — record contradicts this scope by limiting coverage to employees she directly supervised or worked with materially.\n[B] rejected: a properly role-limited noncompete “still likely bars” Ava’s planned product role — record lacks facts establishing that the product role overlaps her material sales responsibilities.\n\nFailed candidates. Employee-nonsolicitation scope — no safe neutralization failed because the supplied rule permits immediate rejection.\nFailed candidates. Effect of a properly limited noncompete on the planned product role — no safe neutralization failed because the assertion is visibly unsupported.\nFailed candidates. Answer B’s additional release carve-outs — concrete consequence failed because no affected claim or entitlement appears in the record.\nFailed candidates. Answer A’s broader fallback invention language — concrete consequence failed because no post-employment invention or affected conduct is identified.\nFailed candidates. Answer A’s passive-ownership carve-out — record support failed because no contemplated investment is stated.\nFailed candidates. Differences in severance-repayment wording — likelihood failed because both require material breach, process, adjudication, and proportionality, and no breach is contemplated.\n\nHard stop. The 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"
    ]
  }
}