{
  "question": "q77",
  "model_1": "DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS",
  "model_2": "Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL",
  "answer_a_was": "Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL",
  "answer_b_was": "DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS",
  "verdict_code": "B",
  "winner": "DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS",
  "judge_model": "openai/gpt-5.6-sol",
  "server_model": "openai/gpt-5.6-sol",
  "provider": "OpenAI",
  "finish_reason": "stop",
  "usage": {
    "prompt_tokens": 7462,
    "completion_tokens": 1619,
    "total_tokens": 9081,
    "cost": 0.09520375,
    "is_byok": false,
    "prompt_tokens_details": {
      "cached_tokens": 0,
      "cache_write_tokens": 7459,
      "audio_tokens": 0,
      "video_tokens": 0
    },
    "cost_details": {
      "upstream_inference_cost": 0.09520375,
      "upstream_inference_prompt_cost": 0.04663375,
      "upstream_inference_completions_cost": 0.04857
    },
    "completion_tokens_details": {
      "reasoning_tokens": 1034,
      "image_tokens": 0,
      "audio_tokens": 0
    }
  },
  "eval_prompt_sha256": "7e58b951cb86e4deba3b60fd01e9b9bd247ebe9883e1c9e43b24acffb1fd4667",
  "provenance_date": "2026-08-09",
  "report": "ANSWER B IS MATERIALLY BETTER.\n\nBasis. Answer B first seeks targeted orders suspending Marcus, preserving assets, and directing payment of the mortgage and payroll, using a temporary conservator only if necessary. Answer A instead recommends immediate appointment of a conservator despite the bank’s willingness to honor a narrower court order, unnecessarily exposing Eleanor to temporary loss of financial control.\n\nExact difference. A recommends an “Emergency Temporary Conservatorship” as the primary remedy; B seeks transaction-specific orders first and conservatorship only in the alternative.\nDifferent conduct. A’s reader petitions to place specified finances under a conservator; B’s reader first petitions for direct bank payments and asset-preservation orders without transferring Eleanor’s authority.\nConcrete consequence. Under A’s path, Eleanor likely loses control over covered finances for up to 30 days; under B’s path, she retains control except for the transactions specifically protected.\nRecord support. The bank will honor a court order, and governing rule 6 expressly recognizes protective orders directed to a particular asset or transaction.\nMaterial magnitude. Avoiding an unnecessary court-appointed fiduciary preserves Eleanor’s legal autonomy during an active capacity dispute.\nLikelihood. A expressly recommends and schedules the conservatorship petition, while B’s narrower order can meet the documented 12-day payment emergency.\nNo safe neutralization by ordinary verification. Correcting A requires replacing its recommended remedy with the narrower protective-order sequence that A did not supply as the primary path.\n\n[A] rejected: the activated POA “relies on your ongoing incapacity” — cited rules state activation occurs when the instrument’s required certification is made.\n[A] rejected: a missed mortgage payment creates “foreclosure” within the emergency period — record lacks mortgage-default or foreclosure terms.\n[B] rejected: Marcus bears a special burden to prove self-dealing fair and authorized — record lacks that burden rule.\n[B] rejected: conversion, financial-exploitation, constructive-trust, and Adult Protective Services remedies — record lacks the governing rules for those remedies.\n\nFailed candidates. POA activation characterization — concrete consequence failed because both answers immediately seek suspension or removal based on the independently unauthorized transfer.\nFailed candidates. A’s possible use of Nina as a tightly limited temporary fiduciary — likelihood failed because A also recommends a neutral professional and the proposed order bars residence changes and asset sales.\nFailed candidates. Different asset-recovery remedies and timing — record support failed because no limitations period or remedy-specific law establishes a different recovery outcome.\nFailed candidates. Different reassessment predictions — different conduct failed because both obtain a decision-specific evaluation and choose support or limited conservatorship according to its findings.\n\nHard stop. Because Answer A recommended an emergency conservatorship rather than first using a sufficient transaction-specific court order, the reader would likely seek appointment of a conservator instead of direct bank-payment and preservation orders, causing Eleanor to experience an avoidable temporary loss of financial authority.",
  "judge_reasoning": "**Evaluating legal formats**\n\nI need to judge the situation based on exact formats and compare the candidates’ divergences. Candidate A claims that the POA is technically activated, while Candidate B questions the authority due to ambiguous language. There's a governing rule that requires certification to determine if someone is unable to manage financial affairs. Candidate A confidently asserts activation while B questions this. They both propose suspension and removal, but B opts for a direct protective court order, which might be less restrictive.**Assessing legal consequences**\n\nI'm determining if appointing a conservator impacts financial authority for 30 days compared to a targeted bank order. Candidate A suggests a strictly limited fiduciary role, which might be temporary. Candidate B may also need a conservator if required by the court, and a bank will honor a court order. The record supports a direct court order. This path for B might avoid conservatorship entirely, and while there could be a legal position on loss of authority, it remains uncertain. A's recommendations also introduce potential conflicts due to concerns about asset misuse.**Analyzing recovery timelines**\n\nCandidate A is waiting for civil recovery until day 30 if nothing is returned, while Candidate B suggests a timeline between days 14 and 30. However, it seems like the same outcomes are expected regardless of the specific deadlines. B introduces terms like burden and exploitation statutes, but these aren't backed by evidence. They also argue against a financial court's placement, which raises questions too. I need to figure out if a verdict would be materially better for B based on a least restrictive order and the necessary elements involved.",
  "_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"
    ]
  }
}