{"judgments":[{"pair_id":"E12MQ007","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":5,"causal_coherence":5,"operational_specificity":4,"testability":4,"practicality":5,"contrivance_risk":1},"winner":"A","reason":"A provides the stronger equal-content contrast, randomized stable-versus-rotating comparison, and sharper falsifiers while preserving the mentor-specific safeguards."},{"pair_id":"E12MQ002","scores_a":{"structural_fidelity":5,"domain_fidelity":3,"causal_coherence":4,"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":1},"winner":"B","reason":"B directly decomposes an observed accounting dependency graph into owned interfaces with decisive shadow replay tests. A is well specified but mechanically elaborate and offers a weak practical advantage over established separately weighed containers or redundant vessel measurement."},{"pair_id":"E12MQ019","scores_a":{"structural_fidelity":5,"domain_fidelity":4,"causal_coherence":5,"operational_specificity":5,"testability":4,"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":"B more carefully bounds eligibility to routine low-judgment packets, specifies fallback and independence safeguards, and uses a stronger preregistered retrospective comparison."},{"pair_id":"E12MQ034","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":5,"causal_coherence":5,"operational_specificity":5,"testability":5,"practicality":5,"contrivance_risk":1},"winner":"B","reason":"Both instantiate inversion cleanly, but B locates the decisive safety context at the worker checkpoint and tests it against the same deadline and capacity constraints with a more practical staged probe."},{"pair_id":"E12MQ043","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":4,"causal_coherence":5,"operational_specificity":4,"testability":5,"practicality":3,"contrivance_risk":3},"winner":"A","reason":"A gives a tighter shared-release diagnosis, distributed admission and voltage-recovery gating, and a matched three-condition test. B is coherent but adds a mechanically fragile shared sequencer with less adaptive recovery control."},{"pair_id":"E12MQ040","scores_a":{"structural_fidelity":4,"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 is a direct incentive-compatibility hypothesis with explicit private information, opportunity costs, evasion paths, fairness constraints, and adversarial replay. A is a strong electrical isolation design, but its mechanism-design framing is comparatively forced."}]}