{
  "question": "q76",
  "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": "A",
  "winner": "claude-opus-5",
  "judge_model": "openai/gpt-5.6-sol",
  "server_model": "openai/gpt-5.6-sol",
  "provider": "OpenAI",
  "finish_reason": "stop",
  "usage": {
    "prompt_tokens": 9026,
    "completion_tokens": 3092,
    "total_tokens": 12118,
    "cost": 0.14916875,
    "is_byok": false,
    "prompt_tokens_details": {
      "cached_tokens": 0,
      "cache_write_tokens": 9023,
      "audio_tokens": 0,
      "video_tokens": 0
    },
    "cost_details": {
      "upstream_inference_cost": 0.14916875,
      "upstream_inference_prompt_cost": 0.05640875,
      "upstream_inference_completions_cost": 0.09276
    },
    "completion_tokens_details": {
      "reasoning_tokens": 2588,
      "image_tokens": 0,
      "audio_tokens": 0
    }
  },
  "eval_prompt_sha256": "7e58b951cb86e4deba3b60fd01e9b9bd247ebe9883e1c9e43b24acffb1fd4667",
  "provenance_date": "2026-08-09",
  "report": "ANSWER A IS MATERIALLY BETTER.\n\nBasis. Answer A expressly deletes the draft’s prohibition on “accepting” customer business, while Answer B narrows the covered customers and duration but leaves that prohibition unaddressed. Following Answer B could therefore leave Ava contractually unable to accept unsolicited business from covered customers in her new role, contrary to Rule 3 and her stated willingness to restrict only solicitation.\n\nProof. Exact difference: A requires deletion of the bar on “accepting” business and permits unsolicited inquiries; B does not address that operative restriction.\nDifferent conduct: A’s reader deletes the acceptance ban; B’s reader redlines duration and customer scope but leaves the unaddressed acceptance language in place.\nConcrete consequence: Ava signing B’s proposed package remains prohibited from accepting unsolicited covered-customer business and risks severance remedies for doing so.\nRecord support: The draft expressly prohibits “soliciting or accepting” business, Rule 3 authorizes only a customer nonsolicitation covenant, and Ava is willing only to avoid soliciting customers she served.\nMaterial magnitude: The restriction directly impairs Ava’s customer relationships and revenue-generating activity in her planned competing industrial-sensors role.\nLikelihood: A rational negotiator would remove the restriction now because it exceeds the governing rule and Ava’s stated negotiating position.\nNo safe neutralization by ordinary verification: Fixing B requires supplying a missing conduct-scope redline rather than merely checking a value, date, citation, or stated fact.\n\nFailed candidates. Noncompetition treatment — different conduct failed because both answers require the agreement to permit Ava’s planned product role.\nConfidentiality exclusions — concrete consequence failed because the record identifies no particular public, independently developed, or third-party information Ava will need to use.\nPost-employment inventions — concrete consequence failed because the record identifies no particular post-departure invention.\nEmployee nonsolicitation — different conduct failed because both answers limit the covenant to materially connected employees and protect unsolicited applications.\nCompensation and breach procedures — different conduct failed because both protect vested compensation and require notice, cure, materiality, adjudication, and proportionate severance remedies.\nRelease timing — different conduct failed because both require seven-day revocation and preserve timely payment of earned compensation.\n\nHard stop. Because Answer B omitted deletion of the prohibition on accepting customer business, the reader would likely leave that restriction in place instead of permitting unsolicited business, causing Ava to experience a contractual bar on lawful customer relationships and potential severance consequences for accepting them.",
  "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"
    ]
  }
}