{
  "question": "q78",
  "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": "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": 3998,
    "completion_tokens": 3001,
    "total_tokens": 6999,
    "cost": 0.11501375,
    "is_byok": false,
    "prompt_tokens_details": {
      "cached_tokens": 0,
      "cache_write_tokens": 3995,
      "audio_tokens": 0,
      "video_tokens": 0
    },
    "cost_details": {
      "upstream_inference_cost": 0.11501375,
      "upstream_inference_prompt_cost": 0.02498375,
      "upstream_inference_completions_cost": 0.09003
    },
    "completion_tokens_details": {
      "reasoning_tokens": 2668,
      "image_tokens": 0,
      "audio_tokens": 0
    }
  },
  "eval_prompt_sha256": "7e58b951cb86e4deba3b60fd01e9b9bd247ebe9883e1c9e43b24acffb1fd4667",
  "provenance_date": "2026-08-09",
  "report": "TIE, FUNCTIONALLY EQUIVALENT.\n\nBasis. After ordinary verification removes unsupported or privileged-file-derived statements, both readers reject the demanded cessation, transfer, destruction, disclosures, and payment; preserve defenses; and propose a controlled 30-day standstill and counsel discussion concerning full-mark presentation and market separation. No remaining difference changes Cirrus’s material legal, procedural, or operational position.\n\n[A] rejected: naming rationale and statement about what Cirrus’s internal records contain — record contradicts the disclosure by expressly directing that the privileged naming file not be disclosed.\n[B] rejected: characterization of the equipment vendor as a non-customer and non-purchaser — record lacks purchaser-status information.\n[B] rejected: assertion that the corrected inquiry is “not probative” actual confusion — cited authority says an isolated inquiry is relevant but not conclusive.\n\nFailed candidates. Privileged naming-file disclosure — no safe neutralization by ordinary verification failed because the express nondisclosure instruction permits deletion while retaining the independent-adoption position.\nFailed candidates. Different formulations of the confusion analysis and denial — different conduct failed.\nFailed candidates. Third-party-use caveats — different conduct failed.\nFailed candidates. Vendor-status and actual-confusion characterizations — no safe neutralization by ordinary verification failed.\nFailed candidates. B’s proposed tolling and public-statements terms — material magnitude failed because the record identifies no approaching limitation period or communication need.\nFailed candidates. B’s Rule 408 language versus A’s “without prejudice” language — record support failed because no supplied rule establishes different protection.\n\nHard stop. The sentence cannot be completed with a concrete, record-supported consequence.",
  "judge_reasoning": "**Evaluating proposal implications**\n\nThe user inquires about a temporary standstill and whether it comes with unsupported or risky commitments. The proposal suggests a vague 30-day standstill that needs acceptance to have any effect. It also mentions bilateral tolling, which might preserve claims and push back legal actions. However, A indicates they'll continue operations without an agreement. It raises a question of whether the standstill defines continued use. Additionally, A’s “final response” might be unnecessary. This feels a bit convoluted.",
  "_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"
    ]
  }
}