{"judgments":[{"pair_id":"E12MQ026","scores_a":{"structural_fidelity":4,"domain_fidelity":4,"causal_coherence":4,"operational_specificity":4,"testability":4,"practicality":4,"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 instantiate downstream thermal pull credibly, but B defines the comparison, measurements, falsifiers, and bounded crossover test more sharply."},{"pair_id":"E12MQ009","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":4,"causal_coherence":4,"operational_specificity":5,"testability":5,"practicality":4,"contrivance_risk":3},"winner":"B","reason":"Both are strong local-demand-triggered material responses; B more cleanly isolates chloride-contingent activation from passive-barrier, filler, and generic-leaching alternatives."},{"pair_id":"E12MQ028","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":1,"domain_fidelity":3,"causal_coherence":2,"operational_specificity":4,"testability":3,"practicality":2,"contrivance_risk":5},"winner":"A","reason":"A directly instantiates protected mentor-anchored professional enculturation. B’s molecular-imprinting analogy substitutes material templating for relational authority and is structurally decorative."},{"pair_id":"E12MQ042","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":2,"domain_fidelity":4,"causal_coherence":4,"operational_specificity":5,"testability":4,"practicality":2,"contrivance_risk":5},"winner":"A","reason":"A addresses an actual contested binding-decision problem with mandate, scope, representation, reasons, and appeal. B is a chemical safety interlock whose authority mapping is largely metaphorical."},{"pair_id":"E12MQ048","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":4,"practicality":5,"contrivance_risk":1},"winner":"B","reason":"Both are highly faithful governance applications, but B has a narrower, more readily piloted authority problem and an especially proportionate nonbinding first evidence step."},{"pair_id":"E12MQ027","scores_a":{"structural_fidelity":5,"domain_fidelity":5,"causal_coherence":4,"operational_specificity":5,"testability":5,"practicality":3,"contrivance_risk":3},"scores_b":{"structural_fidelity":5,"domain_fidelity":5,"causal_coherence":4,"operational_specificity":5,"testability":4,"practicality":4,"contrivance_risk":2},"winner":"B","reason":"Both map strategic incentives well, but B’s bonded-lane self-selection is more directly implementable; A’s success-minting scheme has substantial identity, bootstrap, and dummy-success complications."}]}