{
  "question": "q77",
  "model_1": "Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL",
  "model_2": "claude-opus-5",
  "answer_a_was": "Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL",
  "answer_b_was": "claude-opus-5",
  "verdict_code": "B",
  "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": 10347,
    "completion_tokens": 2251,
    "total_tokens": 12598,
    "cost": 0.132195,
    "is_byok": false,
    "prompt_tokens_details": {
      "cached_tokens": 0,
      "cache_write_tokens": 10344,
      "audio_tokens": 0,
      "video_tokens": 0
    },
    "cost_details": {
      "upstream_inference_cost": 0.132195,
      "upstream_inference_prompt_cost": 0.064665,
      "upstream_inference_completions_cost": 0.06753
    },
    "completion_tokens_details": {
      "reasoning_tokens": 1552,
      "image_tokens": 0,
      "audio_tokens": 0
    }
  },
  "eval_prompt_sha256": "7e58b951cb86e4deba3b60fd01e9b9bd247ebe9883e1c9e43b24acffb1fd4667",
  "provenance_date": "2026-08-09",
  "report": "ANSWER B IS MATERIALLY BETTER.\n\nBasis. Answer A immediately recommends appointing an emergency conservator, while Answer B first seeks a transaction-specific protective order directing payment of the mortgage and payroll without transferring Eleanor’s authority. Because the bank expressly will honor a court order and Rule 6 authorizes asset-specific protective orders, Answer B preserves Eleanor’s control while providing the same timely protection; conservatorship remains a fallback only if necessary.\n\nExact difference. Answer A omits a transaction-specific protective order as the first judicial remedy and instead petitions immediately for an emergency temporary conservator.  \nDifferent conduct. A’s reader seeks appointment of a fiduciary over specified funds; B’s reader first seeks a direct bank order while leaving Eleanor in control.  \nConcrete consequence. Under A, Eleanor unnecessarily loses financial authority to a conservator for up to 30 days; under B, she retains that authority while her essential bills are paid.  \nRecord support. Rule 6 authorizes protective orders directed to particular assets or transactions, and the bank will honor a court order.  \nMaterial magnitude. Appointment of a conservator alters Eleanor’s legal authority and autonomy—the central interest the least-restrictive requirement protects.  \nLikelihood. A rational professional would seek the sufficient direct order because the record expressly confirms the bank will honor it and the deadlines permit expedited relief.  \nNo safe neutralization by ordinary verification. Supplying the omitted protective-order-first strategy would require reconstructing Answer A’s recommended sequence, not merely checking it.\n\n[A] rejected: the activated power “relies on” Eleanor’s ongoing incapacity — the governing rules do not establish that activated authority automatically lapses with improved capacity.  \n[B] rejected: the power definitively never activated or automatically lapsed — the record does not conclusively establish either interpretation of the qualified certification.  \n[B] rejected: the unexplained withdrawals were more likely someone else’s conduct — the record does not identify who made them.  \n[B] rejected: entitlement to constructive trust, interest, surcharge, multiple damages, fees, or criminal-exploitation remedies — the supplied rules establish accounting, suspension or removal, and restoration, but not those additional remedies.  \n[B] rejected: the bank will permit a voluntary partial release and a new account will receive rerouted benefits in time — the record establishes only that the bank will honor a court order or valid replacement fiduciary.\n\nFailed candidate: Different conclusions about POA activation — concrete consequence failed because both readers suspend or remove Marcus and recover the expressly prohibited transfer.  \nFailed candidate: Revocation mechanics — different conduct failed because both answers recommend revocation and notice.  \nFailed candidate: Choice of temporary fiduciary — likelihood failed because Answer A permits a neutral fiduciary and expressly limits any appointee’s authority.  \nFailed candidate: Post-reassessment supports — different conduct failed because both answers prefer supported decision-making, replacement agency, professional investment assistance, and account-limited conservatorship only if needed.  \nFailed candidate: Answer B’s additional recovery and reporting remedies — record support failed.  \nFailed candidate: Answer B’s unsupported nonjudicial banking workarounds — concrete consequence failed because its timely protective-order fallback remains available.\n\nHard stop. Because Answer A omitted a transaction-specific protective order as the first judicial remedy, the reader would likely appoint an emergency conservator instead of obtaining a direct bank-payment order, causing Eleanor to lose financial authority for up to 30 days despite an adequate less restrictive alternative.",
  "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"
    ]
  }
}