{"judgments":[{"pair_id":"E12MQ049","scores_a":{"structural_fidelity":5,"domain_fidelity":5,"causal_coherence":5,"operational_specificity":5,"testability":5,"practicality":4,"contrivance_risk":2},"scores_b":{"structural_fidelity":5,"domain_fidelity":5,"causal_coherence":5,"operational_specificity":4,"testability":5,"practicality":4,"contrivance_risk":2},"winner":"A","reason":"A more fully operationalizes responsibility boundaries, interfaces, stewardship, and reintegration for the specific revenue-recognition change paths."},{"pair_id":"E12MQ017","scores_a":{"structural_fidelity":5,"domain_fidelity":5,"causal_coherence":5,"operational_specificity":5,"testability":5,"practicality":4,"contrivance_risk":2},"scores_b":{"structural_fidelity":5,"domain_fidelity":5,"causal_coherence":5,"operational_specificity":5,"testability":5,"practicality":4,"contrivance_risk":2},"winner":"B","reason":"B more sharply distinguishes advisory detection from binding payment-hold authority and gives affected parties a feasible protected review path."},{"pair_id":"E12MQ003","scores_a":{"structural_fidelity":5,"domain_fidelity":3,"causal_coherence":4,"operational_specificity":5,"testability":5,"practicality":2,"contrivance_risk":4},"scores_b":{"structural_fidelity":5,"domain_fidelity":5,"causal_coherence":5,"operational_specificity":5,"testability":5,"practicality":4,"contrivance_risk":2},"winner":"B","reason":"B directly relocates routine initiation to the party holding readiness information while retaining auditor authority and a clear fallback; A is inventive but physically elaborate and less practical as audit evidence."},{"pair_id":"E12MQ037","scores_a":{"structural_fidelity":3,"domain_fidelity":4,"causal_coherence":4,"operational_specificity":5,"testability":5,"practicality":2,"contrivance_risk":5},"scores_b":{"structural_fidelity":4,"domain_fidelity":4,"causal_coherence":5,"operational_specificity":5,"testability":5,"practicality":3,"contrivance_risk":4},"winner":"B","reason":"B better grounds the affected-party and revocation claims in a scoped, traceable hardware boundary, while explicitly limiting its social-legitimacy claim."},{"pair_id":"E12MQ031","scores_a":{"structural_fidelity":5,"domain_fidelity":4,"causal_coherence":5,"operational_specificity":5,"testability":5,"practicality":3,"contrivance_risk":4},"scores_b":{"structural_fidelity":5,"domain_fidelity":5,"causal_coherence":5,"operational_specificity":5,"testability":5,"practicality":4,"contrivance_risk":2},"winner":"B","reason":"B preserves the mentor-template logic, autonomous post-separation test, and independent anchors with a simpler and more plausible crystallization design."},{"pair_id":"E12MQ029","scores_a":{"structural_fidelity":5,"domain_fidelity":5,"causal_coherence":5,"operational_specificity":5,"testability":5,"practicality":4,"contrivance_risk":2},"scores_b":{"structural_fidelity":5,"domain_fidelity":5,"causal_coherence":5,"operational_specificity":5,"testability":4,"practicality":4,"contrivance_risk":2},"winner":"A","reason":"A supplies stronger discriminating controls for release timing, fixed-hold alternatives, and completion failure, making the herd-causality claim more decisively testable."}]}