{"judgments":[{"pair_id":"E12MQ011","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":4,"domain_fidelity":3,"causal_coherence":3,"operational_specificity":5,"testability":5,"practicality":3,"contrivance_risk":3},"winner":"A","reason":"A directly inverts maintenance activation to the worker holding checkpoint context, with narrow authority and decisive shadow falsifiers. B has a plausible local-feedback concept but relies on uncertain thermal-hydraulic behavior and treats passive flow reallocation as a looser inversion."},{"pair_id":"E12MQ016","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":5,"operational_specificity":5,"testability":5,"practicality":4,"contrivance_risk":2},"winner":"A","reason":"Both precisely target a shared release signal and finite choke. A more cleanly bounds equivalent evidence requests and capacity telemetry within the operated reporting service; B adds more coordination and independence-sensitive assumptions about client capacity."},{"pair_id":"E12MQ023","scores_a":{"structural_fidelity":2,"domain_fidelity":3,"causal_coherence":3,"operational_specificity":5,"testability":4,"practicality":3,"contrivance_risk":5},"scores_b":{"structural_fidelity":5,"domain_fidelity":5,"causal_coherence":5,"operational_specificity":5,"testability":5,"practicality":4,"contrivance_risk":1},"winner":"B","reason":"B is a genuine bounded mentor-anchored enculturation design with autonomy, plural reference, and transfer tests. A is a careful crystallization hypothesis but its mentor, dialogue, consent, and autonomy mappings are decorative analogies rather than the archetype’s relational causal structure."},{"pair_id":"E12MQ014","scores_a":{"structural_fidelity":5,"domain_fidelity":5,"causal_coherence":5,"operational_specificity":5,"testability":5,"practicality":3,"contrivance_risk":1},"scores_b":{"structural_fidelity":3,"domain_fidelity":2,"causal_coherence":4,"operational_specificity":5,"testability":5,"practicality":2,"contrivance_risk":4},"winner":"A","reason":"A explicitly changes disclosure and concealment payoffs, verification, and appeals in an accounting control setting. B physically blocks one duplicate-counting path, but it is not principally a rule environment and is impractical for a general inventory audit."},{"pair_id":"E12MQ018","scores_a":{"structural_fidelity":5,"domain_fidelity":5,"causal_coherence":5,"operational_specificity":5,"testability":4,"practicality":4,"contrivance_risk":1},"scores_b":{"structural_fidelity":5,"domain_fidelity":5,"causal_coherence":5,"operational_specificity":5,"testability":5,"practicality":4,"contrivance_risk":1},"winner":"B","reason":"Both are strong incentive-compatible accounting hypotheses. B provides a more direct bounded pilot with randomized crossover and pre-specified evidence of prior knowledge, making its next evidence step more discriminating."},{"pair_id":"E12MQ038","scores_a":{"structural_fidelity":3,"domain_fidelity":3,"causal_coherence":3,"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 redesigns strategic information, selection, reward, audit, and appeal around reproducibility. A offers a testable passive electrochemical feedback hypothesis, but its incentive-compatible mapping is metaphorical and its collocated strain-gating mechanism remains technically uncertain."}]}