{
  "question": "q78",
  "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": "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": 3866,
    "completion_tokens": 1920,
    "total_tokens": 5786,
    "cost": 0.08175875,
    "is_byok": false,
    "prompt_tokens_details": {
      "cached_tokens": 0,
      "cache_write_tokens": 3863,
      "audio_tokens": 0,
      "video_tokens": 0
    },
    "cost_details": {
      "upstream_inference_cost": 0.08175875,
      "upstream_inference_prompt_cost": 0.02415875,
      "upstream_inference_completions_cost": 0.0576
    },
    "completion_tokens_details": {
      "reasoning_tokens": 1552,
      "image_tokens": 0,
      "audio_tokens": 0
    }
  },
  "eval_prompt_sha256": "7e58b951cb86e4deba3b60fd01e9b9bd247ebe9883e1c9e43b24acffb1fd4667",
  "provenance_date": "2026-08-09",
  "report": "TIE, FUNCTIONALLY EQUIVALENT.\n\nBasis. Both answers place Cirrus on the same material path: reject the demanded remedies, preserve all defenses, contest confusion under the supplied factors, and propose a controlled 30-day standstill for counsel discussions without permanent commitments. Ordinary review would remove the privileged-source assertions and unsupported overstatements before sending, leaving materially equivalent and safe responses.\n\n[A] rejected: “with no reference to Northstar Arc in our internal records” — internally inconsistent with the instruction not to disclose the privileged naming file.\n[B] rejected: the explanation of how the product team derived the name and its asserted intent — internally inconsistent with the instruction not to disclose privileged naming analysis.\n[A] rejected: “extensive third-party use” and use “within our sector” — record lacks evidence of market exposure and states only that 46 energy or engineering businesses use “Northstar.”\n[B] rejected: third-party uses mean the asserted mark’s strength is “correspondingly limited” — record lacks evidence of how widely customers encounter those uses.\n[B] rejected: the vendor inquiry “is not actual confusion” — supplied law says such an inquiry is relevant but not conclusive.\n\nFailed candidate: A’s direct reference to internal records versus B’s naming explanation — no safe neutralization failed.\nFailed candidate: B’s more explicit standstill terms versus A’s general standstill proposal — concrete consequence failed.\nFailed candidate: B’s proposed non-confidential presentation exchange versus A’s omission of an exchange — concrete consequence failed.\nFailed candidate: A’s categorical denial and “final response” language versus B’s phrasing — likelihood failed.\nFailed candidate: differing treatment of the vendor inquiry and third-party uses — different conduct failed.\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"
    ],
    "retained": [
      "substantive report",
      "verdict code",
      "winner mapping",
      "A/B assignment",
      "model and judge identifiers",
      "finish reason",
      "token counts",
      "provenance date"
    ]
  }
}