{
  "question": "q76",
  "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": "A",
  "winner": "Qwen3.8-27B-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": 11007,
    "completion_tokens": 2656,
    "total_tokens": 13663,
    "cost": 0.14847,
    "is_byok": false,
    "prompt_tokens_details": {
      "cached_tokens": 0,
      "cache_write_tokens": 11004,
      "audio_tokens": 0,
      "video_tokens": 0
    },
    "cost_details": {
      "upstream_inference_cost": 0.14847,
      "upstream_inference_prompt_cost": 0.06879,
      "upstream_inference_completions_cost": 0.07968
    },
    "completion_tokens_details": {
      "reasoning_tokens": 2070,
      "image_tokens": 0,
      "audio_tokens": 0
    }
  },
  "eval_prompt_sha256": "7e58b951cb86e4deba3b60fd01e9b9bd247ebe9883e1c9e43b24acffb1fd4667",
  "report": "ANSWER A IS MATERIALLY BETTER.\n\nBasis. Answer A expressly deletes the draft’s prohibition on accepting unsolicited customer business, while Answer B narrows the covered customers and duration but never removes that prohibited conduct. A lawyer following Answer B would likely leave Ava contractually unable to accept unsolicited business from customers she served, contrary to her stated willingness to avoid only solicitation and materially impairing her customer relationships and new product role.\n\nProof (winner verdicts only).\nExact difference. Answer A requires an express exclusion for “responding to unsolicited inquiries” and “accepting unsolicited business”; Answer B omits both.\nDifferent conduct. Professional A strikes the acceptance bar; Professional B narrows its duration and customer scope but leaves it operative.\nConcrete consequence. Ava must decline unsolicited business from covered Industrial Sensors customers for 12 months under B’s redline but may accept it under A’s.\nRecord support. The draft expressly bars “accepting business,” Ava will join an Industrial Sensors competitor, and she agrees only to avoid soliciting customers she personally served.\nMaterial magnitude. Losing the ability to accept customer-initiated business materially restricts Ava’s work, customer relationships, and her new employer’s operations.\nLikelihood. Because Answer B presents its customer-covenant correction as complete without addressing acceptance, a rational drafter would likely implement only its stated duration and customer limitations.\nNo safe neutralization by ordinary verification. Removing the acceptance restriction requires supplying covenant analysis and redline language that Answer B omitted, not merely checking its stated rules or facts.\nB rejected: “$540,000+ (bonus + severance)” — internally inconsistent with the stated $140,000 bonus plus $360,000 severance.\nA rejected: employee restriction covering anyone with whom Ava merely “had material contact” — governing rule permits only employees she directly supervised or worked with materially.\nFailed candidates. Delete-first noncompete position versus narrowed noncompete — concrete consequence failed because both expressly preserve Ava’s planned product role.\nFailed candidates. Answer B’s omitted confidentiality exclusions for public, independently developed, and lawfully received information — record support failed because no supplied fact shows Ava will possess or use information in those categories.\nFailed candidates. Answer B’s failure to state express earned-salary language — concrete consequence failed because the record identifies no unpaid earned salary.\nFailed candidates. Answer B’s narrower customer covenant omitting the confidential-information-only customer category — concrete adverse consequence to Ava failed.\nFailed candidates. Answer A’s additional employee “material contact” category — no safe neutralization failed because the governing rule and Answer A’s own priority package permit its rejection without reconstruction.\nHard stop. Because Answer B omitted removal of the “accepting business” prohibition, the reader would likely preserve a 12-month bar on accepting unsolicited covered-customer business instead of striking it, causing Ava to lose customer-initiated Industrial Sensors business and related work opportunities.",
  "judge_reasoning": "",
  "_public_record": {
    "type": "published record",
    "policy": "../../PUBLIC_RECORD_POLICY.md",
    "transformations": [
      "non-substantive machine metadata normalized",
      "published-record annotation added"
    ]
  }
}