Does the verdict change when the answers swap sides?

Scope and provenance
This is an AI-authored review of the one supplied synthetic fixture. The task, answers and grading reasons were invented for this sample; no independent grader, customer, model API, timing measurement or external source check is represented. No supplied text was executed as code.

1. Decode the two judgments
First order is A left / B right: left selects A. Reversed order is B left / A right: left selects B. The supplied preferences are inconsistent after identity decoding. Two orientations are one case, not two independent observations. No candidate win is certified. This disagreement alone does not identify position bias or its cause.

2. Task-grounded answer assessment
The sequence is [9, 10, 12, 10]. Its qualifying original positions are 2, 3 and 4 (one-based), so the exact required output for this fixture is [10, 12, 10]. Candidate A's supplied text is exactly [10, 12, 10] and satisfies the stated occurrence, threshold, order and no-commentary requirements. Candidate B's supplied text is [12]; it omits both qualifying occurrences of 10. Those omissions contradict the explicit greater-than-or-equal threshold and inclusion of every duplicate occurrence. This is a local finding about the supplied answers, not a model-quality ranking or evidence of behavior on other tasks.

3. First grading reason
Claim: "it retains both 10s and the 12". Supported by A's [10, 12, 10], with original order preserved.
Claim: "the values are sorted ascending". Contradicted: 12 is followed by 10. Sorting was not requested and would change the required original order. The first choice selects the task-correct supplied answer, but this part of its explanation is false; a correct preference does not validate every reason.

4. Reversed grading reason
Claim: "[12] is faster because it removes repeated work". Unverified as a performance claim: no code, timings, method or execution evidence was supplied. Removing the qualifying duplicate values would also violate this task; efficiency cannot rescue the wrong output.
Claim: "The shorter answer wins on conciseness." The supplied B text is shorter, but the rubric permits this tie-break only when both answers meet all requirements. B fails occurrence inclusion, so applying the tie-break here contradicts the supplied rubric. There is no correctness tie to break.

5. Revised task-specific rubric
Apply hard requirements before any preference:
- Parse each supplied answer as a JSON array of numbers and reject commentary, missing syntax or extra non-array material. For this fixture, compare with the exact expected array [10, 12, 10].
- Include each original qualifying occurrence (10, 12, 10) exactly once; exclude 9. Treat repeated input occurrences as separate required occurrences, not repeated work to discard.
- Preserve their original relative order. Do not sort, deduplicate, aggregate or change numeric values.
- If one answer meets every hard requirement and the other fails any, choose the valid answer in its displayed position and cite the exact failing requirement and passage.
- If both are valid, return tie for this no-commentary array task; conciseness may be considered only after correctness and an explicit formatting criterion, never to prefer missing data.
- If neither is valid, or the task/output is unavailable or ambiguous enough to prevent exact comparison, abstain and identify the missing or conflicting evidence. Do not invent timings or a model identity.
Record the chosen candidate via the separately supplied orientation mapping before reconciling preferences. For this exact fixture the revised rubric favors A in either orientation, but no new grader run was performed.

6. Missing evidence and next check
No candidate model names, actual grader settings, repeated-run samples, execution timing or external correctness references were supplied. Determining why the grader changed requires additional controlled observations; this sample cannot establish that cause. An operator can re-grade the exact supplied pair against the revised rubric and retain both reasons and orientation IDs. That is a proposed owner-run check, not executed evidence or permission to call a model. One factual correction to a misstated supplied passage is within the review offer's scope.