{
  "question": "q78",
  "model_1": "DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS",
  "model_2": "Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL",
  "answer_a_was": "DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ4_XS",
  "answer_b_was": "Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL",
  "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": 3940,
    "completion_tokens": 2064,
    "total_tokens": 6004,
    "cost": 0.08654125,
    "is_byok": false,
    "prompt_tokens_details": {
      "cached_tokens": 0,
      "cache_write_tokens": 3937,
      "audio_tokens": 0,
      "video_tokens": 0
    },
    "cost_details": {
      "upstream_inference_cost": 0.08654125,
      "upstream_inference_prompt_cost": 0.02462125,
      "upstream_inference_completions_cost": 0.06192
    },
    "completion_tokens_details": {
      "reasoning_tokens": 1720,
      "image_tokens": 0,
      "audio_tokens": 0
    }
  },
  "eval_prompt_sha256": "7e58b951cb86e4deba3b60fd01e9b9bd247ebe9883e1c9e43b24acffb1fd4667",
  "report": "TIE, FUNCTIONALLY EQUIVALENT.\n\nBasis. Both answers place Cirrus on the same material path: contest likely confusion without concessions, decline the demanded transfers, disclosures, destruction, and payment, preserve defenses, and propose a controlled 30-day standstill discussion concerning presentation and market separation. After ordinary verification rejects Answer A’s unsupported strength characterization, categorical treatment of the vendor inquiry, and disclosure of internal naming rationale, neither answer causes materially different conduct or consequences.\n\n[A] rejected: “their existence underscores that ‘Northstar’ is shared rather than distinctive, and any strength of the asserted mark is correspondingly limited” — record lacks evidence of how widely customers encounter those uses.\n[A] rejected: “The isolated vendor inquiry in your demand is not actual confusion” — supplied rule says isolated uncertainty is relevant but not conclusive.\n[A] rejected: “The product name derives from constellation terminology, with ‘Array’ referring to solar arrays” — record contradicts the instruction not to disclose privileged naming analysis.\n\nFailed candidates. Disclosure of naming rationale — no safe neutralization by ordinary verification failed.\nFailed candidates. Treatment of the vendor inquiry — no safe neutralization by ordinary verification failed.\nFailed candidates. Third-party-use strength inference — no safe neutralization by ordinary verification failed.\nFailed candidates. Answer B’s “discuss” wording for the standstill — different conduct failed because the letter requests confirmation of the proposed terms.\nFailed candidates. Different proposed exchange and standstill details — concrete consequence failed.\nFailed candidates. Answer A’s omission of the qualification that purchaser care does not eliminate confusion — different conduct failed.\n\nHard stop. The required 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"
    ]
  }
}