{"judgments":[{"pair_id":"E12MQ044","scores_a":{"structural_fidelity":4,"domain_fidelity":4,"causal_coherence":4,"operational_specificity":4,"testability":5,"practicality":4,"contrivance_risk":2},"scores_b":{"structural_fidelity":4,"domain_fidelity":3,"causal_coherence":4,"operational_specificity":5,"testability":5,"practicality":3,"contrivance_risk":3},"winner":"A","reason":"A ties molecular partitioning directly to interfacial fracture with feasible controls; B is well specified but its coupled compression–transport mechanism and surrogate transfer are less established."},{"pair_id":"E12MQ026","scores_a":{"structural_fidelity":5,"domain_fidelity":4,"causal_coherence":5,"operational_specificity":4,"testability":4,"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":"Both instantiate downstream thermal pull cleanly, but B supplies tighter control isolation, measurement plan, guardrails, and falsifiers."},{"pair_id":"E12MQ035","scores_a":{"structural_fidelity":2,"domain_fidelity":3,"causal_coherence":3,"operational_specificity":5,"testability":5,"practicality":2,"contrivance_risk":5},"scores_b":{"structural_fidelity":2,"domain_fidelity":4,"causal_coherence":4,"operational_specificity":4,"testability":5,"practicality":3,"contrivance_risk":4},"winner":"B","reason":"Both force an authority-legitimacy analogy onto material chemistry, but B has a more coherent localized-binding hypothesis and a more feasible coupon-scale discriminator."},{"pair_id":"E12MQ048","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":4,"testability":4,"practicality":4,"contrivance_risk":1},"winner":"A","reason":"A more sharply identifies cases where authority is the unresolved constraint, preserves emergency authority, and tests legitimacy components through a stronger shadow-adjudication design."},{"pair_id":"E12MQ034","scores_a":{"structural_fidelity":5,"domain_fidelity":5,"causal_coherence":5,"operational_specificity":4,"testability":5,"practicality":4,"contrivance_risk":1},"scores_b":{"structural_fidelity":5,"domain_fidelity":5,"causal_coherence":5,"operational_specificity":5,"testability":5,"practicality":5,"contrivance_risk":1},"winner":"B","reason":"Both are strong control inversions; B more convincingly locates decisive safety timing at the worker and supplies a bounded, auditable shadow test with explicit deadline fallback."},{"pair_id":"E12MQ046","scores_a":{"structural_fidelity":5,"domain_fidelity":4,"causal_coherence":5,"operational_specificity":5,"testability":5,"practicality":4,"contrivance_risk":2},"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 cleanly transfers discrete transition initiation to validated part state while retaining qualified process limits; B is credible but its local sealing chain has more chemistry-dependent failure points."}]}