{
  "question": "q78",
  "model_1": "Qwen3.5-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL",
  "model_2": "Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL",
  "answer_a_was": "Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL",
  "answer_b_was": "Qwen3.5-27B-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": 3807,
    "completion_tokens": 3296,
    "total_tokens": 7103,
    "cost": 0.12267,
    "is_byok": false,
    "prompt_tokens_details": {
      "cached_tokens": 0,
      "cache_write_tokens": 3804,
      "audio_tokens": 0,
      "video_tokens": 0
    },
    "cost_details": {
      "upstream_inference_cost": 0.12267,
      "upstream_inference_prompt_cost": 0.02379,
      "upstream_inference_completions_cost": 0.09888
    },
    "completion_tokens_details": {
      "reasoning_tokens": 2965,
      "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: reject the demanded relief without admissions, preserve defenses, distinguish the marks and offerings, and propose a controlled 30-day standstill discussion. Ordinary review would remove Answer B’s privileged-file reference and unsupported strength characterization before transmission, leaving no demonstrated difference in Cirrus’s legal, evidentiary, or negotiating position.\n\n[B] rejected: “based on industry constellation terminology, with no reference to Northstar Arc in our internal records” — record contradicts the express instruction not to disclose the privileged naming file.\n[B] rejected: “extensive third-party use narrows the strength” of NORTHSTAR — record lacks evidence that the identified uses are legally protected or widely encountered by customers.\n[B] rejected: “the goods and channels differ materially” — record contradicts categorical channel separation by establishing overlapping enterprises and joint conference attendance.\n\nFailed candidates. Privileged naming-file disclosure — no safe neutralization failed because the prohibited detail can be removed while retaining the independent-adoption position.\nFailed candidates. Third-party-use overstatement — no safe neutralization failed because the unsupported inference is readily rejected from the supplied record.\nFailed candidates. Channel characterization and conference omission — concrete consequence failed.\nFailed candidates. Categorical denial versus qualified denial — different conduct failed.\nFailed candidates. Different standstill details and response deadlines — concrete consequence failed.\nFailed candidates. Answer A’s possible customer-clarification discussion — different conduct failed because neither answer commits Cirrus to that measure.\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"
    ]
  }
}