{"judgments":[{"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":5,"contrivance_risk":1},"winner":"B","reason":"Both ground contested authority well, but B more precisely distinguishes advisory anomaly detection from bounded payment-hold authority and offers a highly feasible retrospective test."},{"pair_id":"E12MQ012","scores_a":{"structural_fidelity":5,"domain_fidelity":3,"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":5,"contrivance_risk":2},"winner":"B","reason":"B cleanly identifies a real shared release signal, constrained response pool, admissible staging, and duplicate-work coalescing; A is mechanically coherent but operationally overengineered for the audit setting."},{"pair_id":"E12MQ025","scores_a":{"structural_fidelity":5,"domain_fidelity":5,"causal_coherence":5,"operational_specificity":5,"testability":5,"practicality":5,"contrivance_risk":2},"scores_b":{"structural_fidelity":1,"domain_fidelity":3,"causal_coherence":2,"operational_specificity":5,"testability":4,"practicality":2,"contrivance_risk":5},"winner":"A","reason":"A faithfully instantiates mentor-anchored enculturation with safety, plural anchors, and an appropriate equal-content comparator. B is a decorative physical analogy rather than relational cultural transmission."},{"pair_id":"E12MQ037","scores_a":{"structural_fidelity":3,"domain_fidelity":4,"causal_coherence":4,"operational_specificity":5,"testability":5,"practicality":4,"contrivance_risk":4},"scores_b":{"structural_fidelity":5,"domain_fidelity":4,"causal_coherence":5,"operational_specificity":5,"testability":5,"practicality":3,"contrivance_risk":3},"winner":"B","reason":"B maps actual affected human custodians, scoped grants, mandate, revocation, and independent veto into the shared-write problem. A provides strong exclusion but attributes legitimacy to physical components too metaphorically."},{"pair_id":"E12MQ005","scores_a":{"structural_fidelity":5,"domain_fidelity":4,"causal_coherence":5,"operational_specificity":5,"testability":5,"practicality":3,"contrivance_risk":3},"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 redesign the feasible gaming path materially, but B targets the common transaction-completeness problem directly and couples normal withdrawal to auditable evidence with fewer measurement assumptions."},{"pair_id":"E12MQ013","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":5,"causal_coherence":5,"operational_specificity":5,"testability":5,"practicality":4,"contrivance_risk":2},"winner":"B","reason":"Both are strong modular decompositions, but B more directly addresses a prevalent software entanglement problem with explicit ownership, contracts, dependency limits, and whole-system reintegration tests."}]}