Why this result mattered
Functional tie
The principal comparison placed Qwen 3.8 and Claude under concealed A/B labels.
Both readers calculate the known holdings as $280,000 separate and $140,000 marital, identify Mira’s $70,000 baseline share, provisionally classify the second wallet as marital, and calculate a possible total recovery of $154,000 if intentional concealment is proved. Both reject the $50,000 release and pursue targeted tracing before final settlement, leaving Mira on the same materially correct and safe path.
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 30: The Wallets Behind the Divorce
Your role
You represent Mira Sol in a property-division case. Her spouse, Evan, disclosed one cryptocurrency wallet only after tax records exposed it and claims most assets are premarital. Trace the supplied transactions, calculate the marital and separate shares, and identify the discovery still needed for an unexplained second wallet.
Governing law
Assume the following property rules apply:
Property owned before marriage is separate if the claiming spouse traces it by clear records. Property acquired during marriage is presumed marital unless a supplied exception is proved.
Marital money used to acquire cryptocurrency creates marital property. Commingling does not automatically destroy a separate claim when the units and later exchanges can be traced.
When indistinguishable separate and marital units are commingled and later partially sold without unit-specific tracing, withdrawals and remaining units retain the same proportional separate and marital character as the mixed pool.
An exchange from one digital asset to another does not change character. The acquired asset takes the proportional character of the asset surrendered.
Appreciation and depreciation follow the underlying proportional ownership unless caused by a separately compensable contribution not supplied here.
Proceeds spent on ordinary marital expenses are not reimbursed to either spouse absent a separate agreement.
Property found in an undisclosed wallet during marriage is presumptively marital unless the holder traces a separate source. A claimed gift requires evidence of donor intent and transaction source.
The valuation date is fixed below. Each spouse ordinarily receives one-half of marital value after classification.
If a spouse intentionally conceals marital property in a sworn disclosure, the court may award the other spouse a surcharge equal to 20 percent of the concealed marital property's value, in addition to the ordinary division.
Counsel must identify missing exchange, wallet, and donor records before final settlement and may seek a targeted forensic order rather than assume the source.
Facts
At marriage, Evan owned 8 bitcoin. Complete exchange records prove the premarital ownership.
During marriage, Evan used $120,000 from a joint account to buy 4 additional bitcoin. He combined all 12 bitcoin in one wallet. No unit-specific identifiers distinguish the premarital and marital bitcoin after commingling.
Evan later sold 3 bitcoin. The sale proceeds went to the joint checking account and were spent on ordinary household expenses. He then exchanged 6 of the remaining 9 bitcoin for 90 ether and retained 3 bitcoin. Later transfers moved 30 of the 90 ether to a cold wallet. Both the original and cold wallets are now identified, so the known traced holdings remain 3 bitcoin and 90 ether in total.
On the valuation date:
- Bitcoin is worth $50,000 each.
- Ether is worth $3,000 each.
A second undisclosed wallet contains another 40 ether worth $120,000. Evan omitted that wallet from his sworn disclosure. Tax records show that the 40 ether arrived during marriage from an external address. Evan says his brother gave it to him, but no exchange statements, donor wallet records, gift message, or brother testimony has been produced.
Mira discovered the second wallet through a tax information request. Evan says wallet-to-wallet transfers are too technical to trace and proposes that Mira receive $50,000 to settle all cryptocurrency claims.
Assignment
Analyze and calculate:
- The separate and marital proportions when 8 premarital and 4 marital bitcoin were combined.
- The character of the 3 bitcoin sale and remaining 9 bitcoin.
- The character of the 6-bitcoin exchange into 90 ether.
- The separate and marital value of the known 3 bitcoin and 90 ether at the valuation date.
- Mira's one-half share of known marital crypto.
- The provisional classification of the second 40-ether wallet.
- Mira's share and the possible concealment surcharge if the second wallet is marital and concealment intentional.
- The exact exchange, wallet, and donor evidence still needed.
- Whether to accept $50,000, settle conditionally, or seek targeted forensic discovery before final division.
Read the sealed key
Q30 key (Crypto Tracing)
- The mixed 12-bitcoin pool was two-thirds separate and one-third marital because 8 units were premarital and 4 were bought with marital funds. Missed: commingling is treated as either total forfeiture or total separate ownership.
- The 3-bitcoin sale retained that proportion: 2 bitcoin of value was separate and 1 marital, but the proceeds were spent on ordinary marital expenses and generate no reimbursement. The remaining 9 bitcoin likewise equal 6 separate and 3 marital units. Missed: the sale changes the character of what remained or creates a reimbursement rule not supplied.
- Exchanging 6 of the 9 bitcoin for 90 ether carries the two-thirds/one-third ratio into the ether. The known holdings of 3 bitcoin and 90 ether remain two-thirds separate and one-third marital despite the cold-wallet transfer. Missed: a wallet transfer or asset exchange resets classification.
- Known value is 3 times $50,000 plus 90 times $3,000, or $420,000. Separate value is $280,000; marital value is $140,000; Mira's one-half share is $70,000. Missed: tracing arithmetic is wrong by six figures.
- The second 40 ether is worth $120,000 and is presumptively marital because it arrived during marriage and Evan has not traced a gift. If marital, Mira's ordinary half is $60,000, making her total crypto share $130,000. Missed: an unsupported gift claim removes the wallet from division.
- If intentional concealment is proved, the 20 percent surcharge on the $120,000 concealed marital value is $24,000, making Mira's potential recovery from the crypto division and surcharge $154,000. Missed: surcharge is applied to all crypto or omitted from the concealed asset.
- Demand exchange statements, KYC and account records, transaction hashes, source-wallet history, tax lots, donor communications, the brother's wallet records and testimony, and device or backup records linking Evan to the wallet. Seek a neutral forensic order if not produced. Missed: final settlement fixes a classification while the decisive source evidence is withheld.
- Reject the $50,000 global crypto settlement. Preserve a conditional branch only after discovery: $70,000 on known marital assets plus the second-wallet division and surcharge depending on tracing and intent. Missed: Mira accepts less than her undisputed half of known marital crypto.
Direct judge report
The report below is preserved from the Qwen 3.8 versus Claude verdict record.
Read the preserved judge report
Basis. Both readers calculate the known holdings as $280,000 separate and $140,000 marital, identify Mira’s $70,000 baseline share, provisionally classify the second wallet as marital, and calculate a possible total recovery of $154,000 if intentional concealment is proved. Both reject the $50,000 release and pursue targeted tracing before final settlement, leaving Mira on the same materially correct and safe path.
[A] rejected: references to Ethereum “UTXO inputs/outputs” and “UTXO lineage” — internally inconsistent with Ethereum’s account-based transaction model.
[A] rejected: conditional example requiring the $24,000 surcharge merely because the wallet remains untraced — cited Rule 9 requires intentional concealment.
Failed candidates. Ethereum UTXO terminology — Different conduct failed; the reader still obtains transaction hashes, addresses, and account-based transfer records.
Failed candidates. Automatic surcharge language in Answer A’s conditional example — No safe neutralization failed; ordinary verification against Rule 9 supplies the express intent requirement without reconstructing the analysis.
Failed candidates. Differences in proposed discovery scope and settlement protections — Concrete consequence failed; both preserve the claims and obtain the source, control, and donor evidence before release.
Failed candidates. Answer B’s additional sanctions, injunction, and clawback suggestions — Likelihood failed; they are expressly conditional and the record does not establish that either reader would pursue them now.
Hard stop. The required 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 readers calculate the known holdings as $280,000 separate and $140,000 marital, identify Mira’s $70,000 baseline share, provisionally classify the second wallet as marital, and calculate a possible total recovery of $154,000 if intentional concealment is proved. | Judge record |
| Qwen 3.8 27B vs DeepSeek V4-Flash-0731 | Functional tie | Both answers reach the same material path: classify the known holdings as $280,000 separate and $140,000 marital, value Mira’s known share at $70,000, provisionally classify the second wallet as marital, preserve the possible $24,000 surcharge, reject the $50,000 offer, and seek targeted forensic discovery… | Judge record |
| Qwen 3.8 27B vs Qwen 3.5 27B | Functional tie | Both answers reach the same classifications and values: $140,000 known marital value, Mira’s $70,000 known share, provisional marital treatment of the second wallet, and a potential total recovery of $154,000 if intentional concealment is proved. | Judge record |
| DeepSeek V4-Flash-0731 vs Claude Opus 5 | Functional tie | Both answers calculate the same separate and marital shares, provisionally classify the second wallet as marital, identify Mira’s $70,000 baseline and $154,000 potential recovery, reject the $50,000 offer, and direct counsel to obtain targeted forensic discovery before final division. | Judge record |
| DeepSeek V4-Flash-0731 vs Qwen 3.5 27B | Functional tie | Both answers correctly trace the known holdings, calculate Mira’s $70,000 known marital share and $154,000 potential total recovery, reject the $50,000 offer, and recommend targeted forensic discovery before settlement. | Judge record |
| Qwen 3.5 27B vs Claude Opus 5 | Functional tie | Both readers classify the known holdings as $280,000 separate and $140,000 marital, recognize Mira’s $70,000 baseline share, provisionally treat the second wallet as marital, and calculate a possible total award of $154,000 including the surcharge. | 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 | 0 |
| Claude Opus 5 | 3 |
| Qwen 3.5 27B | 5 |
This is a review-burden diagnostic, not a universal hallucination measure.