Why this result mattered
Functional tie
The principal comparison placed Qwen 3.8 and Claude under concealed A/B labels.
Both answers place Tessa on the same material path: reject emergency or immediate-equal-time litigation, candidly acknowledge the relapse, impaired driving, and nondisclosure, negotiate Daniel’s 90-day framework with objective safeguards, and build a sustained record before seeking phased expansion. Their differing proposed schedules and mechanics do not establish a record-supported difference in Eli’s safety or Tessa’s ultimate custody position.
Fast audit
Open the underlying record
These links open all four answers, the principal blind judgment, original prompt, and sealed key.
Prompt and sealed key
The key is an audit reference. It was not shown to the contestant systems and did not determine the comparative verdict.
Read the original matter prompt
Question 29: The Relapse Before the Step-Up Hearing
Your role
You represent Tessa Rowan, a mother seeking more parenting time with her 11-year-old son. Tessa had a recent alcohol relapse after a long period of improvement. Counsel her candidly on whether to seek immediate equal custody, negotiate a phased plan, or delay litigation.
Governing law
Assume the following custody rules apply:
A custody order may be modified upon a material change in circumstances when modification serves the child's best interests.
Best-interest factors include safety, stability, each parent's caregiving history, substance use, treatment compliance, ability to support the child's relationship with the other parent, the child's mature preference, and reliable professional evidence.
A recent relapse is a material safety fact but does not create an automatic permanent bar. The court considers severity, whether the child was exposed, candor, treatment response, testing, relapse-prevention structure, and sustained recovery.
A court may order supervised contact, testing, treatment, transportation limits, step-up conditions, and review dates rather than choosing only between sole and equal custody.
Emergency restriction requires a present and specific danger. Past risk alone does not establish an emergency when current safeguards adequately protect the child.
A child's preference is relevant but not controlling. The court should avoid placing the child in the role of deciding between parents.
Concealing a relapse, minimizing impaired driving, or attacking the other parent for raising safety concerns weighs against credibility and cooperative parenting.
A negotiated phased plan may be approved if it protects safety and provides objective conditions. A court should not order immediate equal time merely to reward parental progress.
Counsel must not present a sobriety history that omits a known relapse or characterize short-term negative tests as proof of long-term stability.
Facts
Eighteen months ago, Tessa and Daniel Rowan agreed that Daniel would have primary physical custody while Tessa addressed alcohol misuse. Tessa received supervised Saturday visits and one midweek dinner.
For the next 14 months Tessa completed outpatient treatment, attended recovery meetings, maintained stable housing and employment, and produced negative random tests. Her visits expanded by agreement to unsupervised weekends every other week. No incident occurred while their son, Eli, was with her.
Six weeks ago Tessa drank at a wedding, drove home alone, and struck a parked car. Eli was with Daniel. Tessa was charged with impaired driving. She did not tell Daniel for ten days, until he learned from a mutual friend. Daniel returned visits to supervision.
Tessa immediately reentered intensive outpatient treatment, attends four meetings each week, installed an alcohol-monitoring device, surrendered her car keys to her sister, and has five weeks of negative tests. Her counselor describes her response as serious but states that longer observation is needed.
Eli's therapist reports that Eli has a strong, healthy bond with Tessa and wants more time with her, but becomes anxious when adults discuss drinking. The therapist recommends gradual expansion with reliable sobriety safeguards rather than an abrupt move to equal time.
Daniel has followed the current order, facilitates supervised visits, and says he will consider a written step-up after 90 additional days of negative tests. Tessa wants to file tomorrow for immediate equal parenting time and argues that the relapse “does not count” because Eli was not present.
Assignment
Counsel Tessa on:
- Material change and the best-interest factors supporting expansion.
- The relapse, impaired driving, ten-day nondisclosure, and current treatment response.
- The significance of Eli not being present.
- Eli's preference and therapist recommendation.
- Whether emergency relief or immediate equal custody is supportable.
- A phased plan with testing, treatment, transportation, supervision, and review terms.
- Whether to file now, negotiate, or wait for a stronger record.
- The candid statement Tessa must make about the relapse and the concrete course most likely to improve custody safely.
Read the sealed key
Q29 key (Custody After Relapse)
- Tessa's 14 months of recovery, stable home and work, successful unsupervised weekends, bond, and Eli's preference support eventual expansion. The relapse, impaired driving, delayed disclosure, and only five weeks of renewed testing are the central counterweights. Missed: counsel presents only the favorable recovery arc.
- Eli's absence reduces direct exposure but does not make the event irrelevant; impaired driving and concealment bear on judgment, relapse stability, transportation, and cooperative parenting. Missed: “the child was not there” is used as a complete answer.
- Immediate equal custody is not supportable on this record, and no emergency expansion exists. The therapist recommends gradual change, the counselor wants longer observation, and current safeguards protect Eli. Missed: an overreaching motion is denied and damages Tessa's credibility.
- A rational phased proposal is continued supervised contact now, expansion to unsupervised daytime and then overnight time after 90 additional days of negative random testing and treatment compliance, no driving with Eli until license and monitoring conditions are satisfied, continued counseling, immediate disclosure of any relapse, and a review date for further step-up. Missed: “more time” lacks objective safety conditions.
- Tessa should tell the full relapse facts, accept responsibility for the ten-day delay, and emphasize the immediate treatment response without claiming five weeks proves long-term stability. Missed: concealment becomes a courtroom credibility finding.
- Negotiate Daniel's offered 90-day step-up and seek court approval if agreement is reached. File only for the phased structure if Daniel refuses reasonable terms; do not file tomorrow for equal time. Missed: litigation timing converts a recoverable setback into evidence against safe expansion.
Direct judge report
The report below is preserved from the Qwen 3.8 versus Claude verdict record.
Read the preserved judge report
Basis. Both answers place Tessa on the same material path: reject emergency or immediate-equal-time litigation, candidly acknowledge the relapse, impaired driving, and nondisclosure, negotiate Daniel’s 90-day framework with objective safeguards, and build a sustained record before seeking phased expansion. Their differing proposed schedules and mechanics do not establish a record-supported difference in Eli’s safety or Tessa’s ultimate custody position.
[A] rejected: filing tomorrow will likely cause delay, increased stress, and a worse credibility record — record lacks an adjudicator or procedural evidence establishing those outcomes.
[A] rejected: equal time may become appropriate at 180 days — record lacks future treatment, testing, therapist, and safety evidence.
[B] rejected: saying the relapse “does not count” could itself cost months of parenting time and create findings lasting for years — record lacks an adjudicator or procedural evidence establishing those outcomes.
[B] rejected: near-equal time is plausible within approximately one year — record lacks future treatment, testing, therapist, criminal-case, and co-parenting evidence.
Failed candidates. Post-90 expansion pace—record support failed; the record does not establish whether daytime visits, alternating weekends, or another increment will then be safe.
Failed candidates. Timing of equal-time review—record support failed; future compliance and professional recommendations are unknown.
Failed candidates. Transportation reinstatement conditions—record support failed; the criminal disposition, licensing status, treatment evidence, and future safety assessment are unknown.
Failed candidates. Automatic advancement versus discretionary reviews—concrete consequence failed; either structure remains subject to agreement or court approval and future compliance.
Failed candidates. Setback periods, testing frequency, supervision cost, and reporting mechanics—material magnitude failed; no concrete client outcome from these negotiable details is established.
Failed candidates. Characterization of nondisclosure as serious versus outcome-controlling—different conduct failed; both require full acknowledgment and a prompt-disclosure safeguard.
Hard stop. The sentence cannot be completed with a concrete, record-supported consequence.
All six pairings
Every pair of the four model answers was judged independently under the same evaluation instrument.
Open the six head-to-head results
| Pairing | Result | Why it mattered | Record |
|---|---|---|---|
| Qwen 3.8 27B vs Claude Opus 5 | Functional tie | Both answers place Tessa on the same material path: reject emergency or immediate-equal-time litigation, candidly acknowledge the relapse, impaired driving, and nondisclosure, negotiate Daniel’s 90-day framework with objective safeguards, and build a sustained record before seeking phased expansion. | Judge record |
| Qwen 3.8 27B vs DeepSeek V4-Flash-0731 | Functional tie | Both answers direct Tessa not to seek immediate equal custody, to acknowledge the relapse and nondisclosure candidly, and to negotiate a roughly 90-day safety-focused plan involving supervision, treatment, testing, transportation limits, and review. | Judge record |
| Qwen 3.8 27B vs Qwen 3.5 27B | Qwen 3.8 win | Answer A pursues an objective step-up after 90 additional days and permits seeking a court-ordered phased plan if Daniel refuses, while Answer B recommends a six-month plan and postpones litigation until six months of compliance. | Judge record |
| DeepSeek V4-Flash-0731 vs Claude Opus 5 | Functional tie | Both answers direct Tessa away from emergency or immediate equal custody and toward candid disclosure, continued recovery documentation, and negotiation of a safety-based phased plan, with litigation deferred until the record is stronger if agreement fails. | Judge record |
| DeepSeek V4-Flash-0731 vs Qwen 3.5 27B | Functional tie | Both answers direct Tessa not to seek immediate equal custody or emergency relief, to acknowledge the relapse, impaired driving, and nondisclosure candidly, and to negotiate a safeguarded phased plan while building a longer recovery record. | Judge record |
| Qwen 3.5 27B vs Claude Opus 5 | Claude win | Both answers reject emergency relief and immediate equal custody in favor of candor, safeguards, and a negotiated phased plan. The proven divergence is timing: Answer A seeks an automatic step-up after 90 clean days and litigation if Daniel then stalls, while Answer B advises waiting six months before… | Judge record |
Rejected-point diagnostic
Judge-attributed rejected points for this matter across all six pairings:
| Qwen 3.8 27B | 4 |
|---|---|
| DeepSeek V4-Flash-0731 | 1 |
| Claude Opus 5 | 2 |
| Qwen 3.5 27B | 11 |
This is a review-burden diagnostic, not a universal hallucination measure.