{"judgments":[{"pair_id":"E12MQ009","scores_a":{"structural_fidelity":5,"domain_fidelity":5,"causal_coherence":5,"operational_specificity":5,"testability":5,"practicality":4,"contrivance_risk":1},"scores_b":{"structural_fidelity":5,"domain_fidelity":4,"causal_coherence":4,"operational_specificity":5,"testability":5,"practicality":4,"contrivance_risk":2},"winner":"A","reason":"A realizes damage-local initiation directly and cleanly, with well-matched controls; B is strong but depends on more uncertain exchange selectivity and corrosion-inhibition conditions."},{"pair_id":"E12MQ033","scores_a":{"structural_fidelity":2,"domain_fidelity":3,"causal_coherence":3,"operational_specificity":4,"testability":4,"practicality":2,"contrivance_risk":5},"scores_b":{"structural_fidelity":2,"domain_fidelity":3,"causal_coherence":4,"operational_specificity":5,"testability":5,"practicality":3,"contrivance_risk":5},"winner":"B","reason":"Both force a relational enculturation archetype onto hardware calibration, but B defines the physical feedback loop, controls, and retained-transfer test more rigorously."},{"pair_id":"E12MQ032","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":"A","reason":"Both are strong modular decompositions, but A more directly tests whether a local material substitution preserves otherwise confounding physical cell states."},{"pair_id":"E12MQ040","scores_a":{"structural_fidelity":2,"domain_fidelity":4,"causal_coherence":4,"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 directly redesigns strategic retry incentives with explicit identity, verification, fairness, and adversarial tests. A is chiefly a physical isolation and buffering design, not incentive-compatible rule design."},{"pair_id":"E12MQ004","scores_a":{"structural_fidelity":5,"domain_fidelity":4,"causal_coherence":4,"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 has a more naturally bounded physical partition, clearer interfaces, and direct localized-service evidence; A candidly faces potentially dense melt-phase coupling."},{"pair_id":"E12MQ015","scores_a":{"structural_fidelity":5,"domain_fidelity":5,"causal_coherence":5,"operational_specificity":5,"testability":5,"practicality":5,"contrivance_risk":1},"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 gives a tightly bounded, shadow-first extraction with adjudicated cross-path cases and an especially clear local-change falsifier. B is strong but its full workflow has more unresolved semantic and integration dependencies."}]}