{
  "question": "q78",
  "model_1": "Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL",
  "model_2": "claude-opus-5",
  "answer_a_was": "Qwen3.8-27B-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": 4072,
    "completion_tokens": 2337,
    "total_tokens": 6409,
    "cost": 0.09555625,
    "is_byok": false,
    "prompt_tokens_details": {
      "cached_tokens": 0,
      "cache_write_tokens": 4069,
      "audio_tokens": 0,
      "video_tokens": 0
    },
    "cost_details": {
      "upstream_inference_cost": 0.09555625,
      "upstream_inference_prompt_cost": 0.02544625,
      "upstream_inference_completions_cost": 0.07011
    },
    "completion_tokens_details": {
      "reasoning_tokens": 2018,
      "image_tokens": 0,
      "audio_tokens": 0
    }
  },
  "eval_prompt_sha256": "7e58b951cb86e4deba3b60fd01e9b9bd247ebe9883e1c9e43b24acffb1fd4667",
  "report": "TIE, FUNCTIONALLY EQUIVALENT.\n\nBasis. Both answers deny liability, apply the supplied confusion factors, decline Northstar Arc’s demands, preserve defenses, and propose a controlled 30-day standstill discussion without committing to permanent changes. Ordinary verification removes Answer B’s unsupported characterizations, after which both place Cirrus on the same materially safe settlement path.\n\n[B] rejected: “the equipment vendor [was] not a customer” — record lacks the vendor’s customer status.\n[B] rejected: customer overlap exists “as [it] would for most vendors in this industry” — record lacks industry-wide overlap facts.\n[B] rejected: the isolated inquiry “is not probative actual confusion” — cited authority says otherwise.\n\nFailed candidates. B’s express tolling and no-proceedings terms versus A’s less-defined standstill — concrete consequence failed because both merely propose negotiations and the record identifies no affected deadline or defense.\nFailed candidates. B’s inquiry characterization — no safe neutralization failed because ordinary verification corrects it without changing Cirrus’s response.\nFailed candidates. Different proposed presentation and market-separation topics — different conduct failed because neither answer commits Cirrus to implementing them.\nFailed candidates. A’s five-day request for confirmation — concrete consequence failed because it does not accept Northstar Arc’s substantive deadline or alter Cirrus’s rights.\nFailed candidates. B’s stronger house-mark and marketing-expenditure arguments — different conduct failed because both answers reach the same confusion position and response.\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"
    ]
  }
}